-
Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-7-2008 Bansal v. Microsoft Hotmail Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4515 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Bansal v. Microsoft Hotmail" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1469. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1469 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. CLD-136 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-4515 ___________ AKHIL BANSAL, Appellant v. MICROSOFT HOTMAIL ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-04029) District Judge: Honorable Norma L. Shapiro ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 22, 2008 Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed March 7, 2008) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Akhil Bansal is currently incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia. In 2007, he filed a pro se lawsuit for civil damages against Microsoft Hotmail alleging violations of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (“SCA”), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510- 2520 (the “Crime Control Act”), the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act, 18 Pa.C.S. 5741 et seq., and violations of his rights to privacy under common law. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Bansal appeals the District Court’s dismissal of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The relevant facts are as follows. At some point, Bansal set up an e-mail account with Microsoft Hotmail. In 2006, Bansal was convicted in federal court of multiple counts related to his illegal, internet sales of pharmaceuticals. In the course of the criminal investigation, the government issued several subpoenas and warrants to Microsoft Hotmail, ordering it to divulge emails and furnish information regarding Bansal’s account. Microsoft Hotmail complied pursuant to these court orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Bansal is proceeding IFP, we will dismiss his appeal if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The SCA prohibits “intentionally access[ing] without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; . . . or intentionally exceed[ing] an authorization to access that facility; . . . thereby obtain[ing] . . . access to . . . [an] electronic communication while it is in electronic storage . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a). It authorizes a private right of action for monetary damages under § 2707. However, § 2701(c) of the act excepts “entit[ies] providing a wire or electronic 2 communications service,” and we have interpreted the act as exempting searches of stored electronic communications by the party providing the communications service. Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
352 F.3d 107, 115 (3d Cir. 2003). Furthermore, the SCA exempts all parties acting pursuant to a court order from liability. 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e). Bansal’s claim under the SCA is meritless. Microsoft Hotmail is excepted from liability under §2701 from Bansal’s suit, because it is the communications service provider for his email account. See
Fraser, 352 F.3d at 115. Furthermore, as evidenced by the attachments to Bansal’s complaint, Microsoft Hotmail’s actions with regards to his account were in compliance with a court order. Thus, his claim cannot succeed. See 18 U.S.C. § 2707. Similarly, Bansal’s claims under the Crime Control Act cannot succeed. Like the SCA, the Crime Control Act exempts “providers of . . . electronic communication services” from liability if they have disclosed information pursuant to a court order. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii); see also
id. § 2502(d)(1)(thecivil damages provision of the Crime Control Act relieves a party from liability if it acts in good faith compliance with a court order). Because Microsoft Hotmail disclosed the contents of Bansal’s emails pursuant to a court order, it cannot be liable under the statute. Because the appeal is meritless, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 07-4515
Citation Numbers: 267 F. App'x 184
Filed Date: 3/7/2008
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023