## Facts

- Michael Aaron Jayne, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Sprint PCS and multiple law-enforcement and parole-related defendants.
- Police suspected Jayne of involvement in a kidnapping for ransom and sought to locate him during the investigation.
- Jayne alleged that officers requested his cell-phone records and GPS/location information from Sprint to help find and arrest him.
- Jayne alleged Sprint disclosed the information without his consent and without proper legal process.
- Jayne sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also asserted a claim under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2712, based on Sprint’s disclosure to law enforcement.
- Sprint moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The ruling at 2009 WL 426117 was issued as an order and findings and recommendations addressing Sprint’s motion to dismiss (among other motions), later subject to adoption by the district judge.

## Issues

1. Whether Jayne stated a plausible claim under the Stored Communications Act based on Sprint’s disclosure of his cell-phone records and GPS/location information to police investigating a reported kidnapping for ransom.
2. Whether Sprint, a private cellular provider, could be treated as acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 based on its cooperation with law-enforcement requests for customer information.
3. Whether Jayne could maintain any federal constitutional privacy claim against Sprint absent state action.

## Decision

- The court recommended granting Sprint’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court concluded Jayne failed to state a viable SCA claim because the alleged disclosure occurred in response to police reports of a kidnapping for ransom and fit within the SCA’s emergency disclosure allowance (good-faith emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury).
- The court concluded Sprint was not a state actor for § 1983 purposes based on the pleaded facts; providing information to law enforcement, without more, did not transform Sprint into a governmental actor.
- The court rejected Jayne’s attempts to proceed against Sprint on constitutional theories that depended on state action.

## Legal Principles

- The SCA generally restricts a provider’s voluntary disclosures of certain customer records and information, but it permits disclosure to a governmental entity if the provider, in good faith, believes an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury requires disclosure without delay. (18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4)).
- A civil claim under the SCA requires allegations showing an unauthorized disclosure; where the pleaded facts show a statutory permission or defense applies (such as emergency disclosure and good-faith protection), the complaint does not state a claim.
- Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires action under color of state law. A private company does not become a state actor merely by responding to law-enforcement requests, absent facts showing joint action, coercion, or other conduct that makes the private party’s actions fairly attributable to the state.
- Constitutional claims asserted through § 1983 generally fail against a private carrier when the complaint does not plead facts establishing state action.

## Conclusion

In Jayne v. Sprint PCS, the court recommended dismissal of Jayne’s claims against Sprint because the complaint’s own allegations showed Sprint disclosed records and location information to police responding to a reported kidnapping emergency, bringing the conduct within the SCA’s emergency disclosure provision, and because Sprint’s cooperation with law enforcement did not amount to state action required for § 1983 liability.


Jayne v. Sprint PCS, 2009 WL 426117 (2009)