Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Uzoma IGBONWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACEBOOK, INC.; Mark Zuckerberg, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15121

Decided: November 26, 2019

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Uzoma Igbonwa, Pro Se Paven Malhotra, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Facebook, Inc. Divya Musinipally, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Mark Zuckerberg


Uzoma Igbonwa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging negligence, defamation, discrimination, and breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court properly dismissed Igbonwa’s negligence, defamation, and discrimination claims as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because interactive computer service providers are immune under the Act from civil liability from claims premised upon the provider’s role as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2009).

Dismissal of Igbonwa’s breach of contract claim was proper because Igbonwa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated any provision in the Terms of Service. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors, XXVI, LLC, 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174, 183 (2011) (setting forth required elements to state a claim for breach of contract).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).


Copied to clipboard