Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Weimer v. Google Inc.

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

August 17, 2018

ANTHONY WEIMER, Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.; MICROSOFT COPORATION; FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Jeremiah C. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge.

         The above named Defendants move to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Anthony Weimer's Complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Department of Justice (“federal Defendants”) and Google Inc. also move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and Weimer cross-moves for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions should be granted, Weimer's cross-motion for summary judgment should be denied, and this matter dismissed.

         I. Background

         On April 26, 2018, Weimer filed a Pro Se Non-Prisoner Complaint Form naming Google Inc., Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Communication Commission, and the U.S Department of Justice as Defendants. (Doc. 1). Weimer asserts federal court jurisdiction based on a United States government defendant, federal question, and diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1, at 5). In his statement of claims, Weimer lists the following alleged constitutional and statutory violations (parentheticals added):

(1) U.S. (Constitution) First Amendment;
(2) 18 U.S.C. § 1462 (“Importation or transportation of obscene matters”);
(3) 18 U.S.C. 1465 (“Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”);
(4) 18 U.S.C. § 1466 (“Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter”);
(5) 18 U.S.C. § 1470 (“Transfer of obscene material to minors”);
(6) 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) (“Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18”);
(7) 47 U.S.C. §§ 230-231 (“Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material”);
(8) Mont. Code. Ann. § 45-8-201 (“Montana criminal obscenity”);
(9) N.Y.P.L. § 235 (“New York criminal obscenity”);
(10) C.A.P.C. § 313 (“California criminal obscenity”);
(11) 20 C.F.R. § 75.1 (Adam Walsh regulation, “Record keeping requirements - Sexual exploitation and abuse of children”);
(12) 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (“Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.