Dylan Stephen Jayne v. GOOGLE INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE FOUNDERS On Appeal from the United States District…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4083
___________
DYLAN STEPHEN JAYNE,
Appellant
v.
GOOGLE INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE FOUNDERS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-01677)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 5, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 7, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
This appeal arises from the order of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania dismissing Dylan Stephen Jayne’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
In September 2007, Jayne filed an action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the
founders of the Google internet search engine, alleging that his social security number
when turned upside down is a scrambled code that spells the name “Google.” The
District Court reviewed the lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed
it sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Jayne filed a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s sua
sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223
(3d Cir. 2000).
To prevail on his § 1983 claim, Jayne must demonstrate that the named defendants
acted under color of state law and deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or
federal law. See Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 590
(3d Cir. 1998). It is clear that neither of these criteria is satisfied here. As explained by
the District Court, Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne’s allegation
concerning his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the
Constitution or federal law. We also agree that any amendment of the complaint would
be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 2002).
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 2 of 2 --