Steven Meleika v. Instagram

1
DLD-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2941
___________
STEVEN MELEIKA,
Appellant
v.
INSTAGRAM
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil No. 2:21-cv-16720)
District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 17, 2022
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 14, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Steven Meleika appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his amended
complaint after screening it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons that
follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
In September 2021, Meleika filed a complaint in the District Court, seeking millions
of dollars in damages against Instagram. The District Court screened Meleika’s complaint
and concluded that he failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was the only
legal basis for relief identified by Meleika. Meleika’s complaint alleged, in its entirety, that
Instagram allowed companies to sponsor content as a marketing tactic. The District Court
dismissed Meleika’s complaint but granted him leave to amend.
Meleika responded by filing a brief, which the District Court liberally construed as
an amended complaint. This document claimed that Instagram had violated Meleika’s civil
rights, suggesting that Instagram needed to pay him for unidentified sponsorships. He
included dozens of screenshots of posts on Instagram without any explanation of their
significance. The District Court screened and dismissed this complaint as well after
concluding that Meleika failed to state a claim, again permitting Meleika an opportunity to
amend his complaint. The District Court stated that if Meleika did not file an amended
complaint by the 30-day deadline, its order would automatically convert to a dismissal with
prejudice. Meleika did not amend his complaint again, instead filing a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(2); Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2019). We construe
Meleika’s allegations liberally and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s
dismissal of his operative complaint for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm a district court’s decision if
the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247
(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Meleika cannot state an action under § 1983 where he has not alleged a violation of
his constitutional rights by a person acting under color of state law. See Harvey v. Plains
Twp. Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir. 2011). He named only Instagram, a private
company, as a defendant, and did not explain how he has been wronged beyond vaguely
alleging, at best, that unidentified sponsorship payments have somehow been withheld
from him. He included no further factual allegations. Meleika received several
opportunities to amend his complaint but chose to pursue this appeal rather than amending
his complaint again. His complaint was appropriately dismissed.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.1
1 We also deny Meleika’s “Amended Brief,” which has been construed as a motion
for summary action.

-- 3 of 3 --