Valverde v. Meta Headquarters

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Brenda O Valverde,
Plaintiff,
v.
Meta Headquarters,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03223-PHX-DJH
ORDER
On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff Brenda O. Valverde (“Plaintiff”) filed her initial
Complaint and her Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs. (See Docs. 1–2). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Application but dismissed her
Complaint with leave to amend. (See Doc. 5). Plaintiff has now filed an Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 6). Accordingly, the Court will proceed to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 6) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. Legal Standard
When a party has been granted IFP status, the Court must review the complaint to
determine whether the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 In conducting this review, “section 1915(e) not only
1 “While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis,
Case 2:25-cv-03223-DJH Document 7 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state a claim.”
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires complaints to make “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While Rule 8 does
not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, ‘the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me’ accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
A complaint is frivolous if it is based on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional
factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–30 (1989); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (dismissal is also appropriate when the facts alleged
are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”). This Court has “not only
the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also
the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those
claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
The Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret the
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428,
435 (9th Cir. 2000). That rule, however, does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. The Court is mindful that it must “construe pro se filings liberally when
evaluating them under Iqbal.” Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 763-64 (9th Cir. 2014)
§1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.”
Long v. Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012 WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012)
(citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies
to all in forma pauperis complaints[.]”)).
Case 2:25-cv-03223-DJH Document 7 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(quoting Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
II. Discussion
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to comply with the Court’s prior Order and
only serves to reiterate her prior allegation with some added detail. Plaintiff still seeks
“4.425 billion” dollars from “Meta Headquarters.” (Doc. 6 at 4). She claims that her
“image, likeness, and intellect has and is [sic] being used 11/11/25 to generate false
images.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests “.59 ¢ to every dollar Meta has earned from past (“launch
of”) to present.” (Id.) These claims were present in Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. (See
Doc. 1 at 4).
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds that artificial intelligence is the cause of
the alleged infringements. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff further claims that “[a]s a citizen of the
United States of America [she has] the right to privacy,” and “[a]s a child of God [she has]
the right to speak.” (Id.) As a result of Meta’s alleged infringement of her image and
likeness, Plaintiff is “having an identity crisis,” and said infringement “insults [Plaintiff’s]
intelligence[.]” (Id. at 7).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. A “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the
facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there
are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal also appropriate when the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,”
“fanciful,” “fantastic,” and/or “delusional.”). Although artificial intelligence is new and
developing technology, Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claims about Meta’s use of artificial
intelligence lack any specificity or detail that would give rise to a plausible claim. Doe v.
Universal Music Group, 2025 WL 3251433, *7 (D. Nev. 2025) (“Plaintiff fails to offer
sufficient facts regarding the actual use of artificial intelligence, the fact that consumers
did not know or expect that artificial intelligence was being utilized, or that it resulted in
actual damages to himself or other consumers.”) Moreover, Plaintiff’s relies vaguely on
her right to privacy and rights “[a]s a child of God” (Doc. 6 at 6), and the elements of any
Case 2:25-cv-03223-DJH Document 7 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
claim are not pled. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish a claim.
See Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987) (“An in forma pauperis
complaint is frivolous if it had no arguable substance in law or fact.”) (internal quotations
omitted). Because Plaintiff’s amendments failed to remedy the Complaint’s deficiencies,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Furthermore, despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s mandate to freely
allow leave to amend, “[t]here is no reasonable basis for concluding that amendment could
cure this complaint so leave to amend is inappropriate.” Marcos-Chavela v. Utah, 2022
WL 3018242, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2022); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply
with Rule 8(a)).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED
without leave to file a second amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to
terminate this matter.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-03223-DJH Document 7 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 4