PHILADELPHIA – A serial plaintiff with a history of filing dubious litigation did not have his constitutional rights violated when he was muted while playing the popular online video game “RuneScape," according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
A per curiam trio of judges from the Third Circuit issued a dismissal of Amro Elansari’s case on Jan. 22, pointing to the fact that his federal claims were unsupported by pertinent case law.
On July 10, 2019, Elansari had filed a complaint alleging that after playing the game “RuneScape," operated by United Kingdom-based defendant Jagex Ltd., on the Internet for more than 2,000 hours, that he was “muted” from the game for no reason, and that his internal appeal was denied.
Elansari’s complaint alleged a variety of federal constitutional violations, that his human rights were violated and requested that Jagex “remove the mute on [his] account.”
The District Court granted Elansari’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and then screened his complaint, according to federal law. As a result, the District Court dismissed the case on July 15, five days after it was filed, and specifically, dismissed Elansari’s federal constitutional claims with prejudice.
The District Court did not understand Elansari to have raised a state law claim, but observed he might be able to bring such a claim in a proper forum exercising jurisdiction over the foreign defendants. The Court further determined that Elansari could not profitably amend the constitutional claims, leading Elansari to appeal to the Third Circuit.
“On appeal, Elansari first argues that the District Court should have adjudicated, and granted relief on, a Fourteenth Amendment claim. However, state action is a prerequisite for bringing a Fourteenth Amendment claim, and Elansari has made no allegations indicating that any named defendant is a state actor,” the Third Circuit stated.
Next, in citing Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Elansari maintained that the District Court should have identified and considered a claim of public accommodations discrimination in Elansari’s complaint.
“Elansari insists that defendant Jagex should be liable for ‘unequal treatment’ because Elansari’s account was “muted…compared to all other players who are not muted,” according to the Third Circuit.
Though Title II prohibits “discrimination...on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin”, the federal appellate court believed there was no grounds to apply that law in this case.
“Even generously construing Elansari’s complaint to raise a claim of public accommodations discrimination and assuming that Elansari can bring such a claim in this context, at no point either in the District Court or on appeal has Elansari alleged losing access to Jagex’s online game due to discrimination based on any of the grounds protected by Title II. Elansari has shown no error in the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment,” the Third Circuit said.
Elansari is no stranger to filing litigation in Pennsylvania federal courts.
Docket searches show that he has filed 10 lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the previous 18 months, four of them in July alone.
His attempt to re-litigate a class action lawsuit against the makers of dating app Tinder was thrown out by the Third Circuit in November and per a profanity-laden video on his YouTube channel, he claims he is currently suing Best Buy for alleged bait-and-switch marketing tactics.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-2696
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-03006
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com