Federal case record audit · D. Mass. No. 3:20-cv-30168-MGM · First Cir. No. 21-1582
Waters v. Facebook: what the operative complaint alleged—and what the written decisions addressed
The district court granted leave to file the latest proposed complaint, made it operative, and in the same five-page order dismissed it with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This page compares the ten pleaded counts with the reasons actually stated, then follows the record through Rule 59, Rule 60, summary affirmance, rehearing, and certiorari.
Choose the depth you need
Understand the case without opening every filing.
Understand the outcome
Read the shortest accurate account of the complaint, dismissal, post-judgment motions, appeal, and final status.
Start with the summary →Verify the central record conflict
Compare Count III, the district court’s generic § 1985 paragraph, and the Supreme Court’s clause-specific rule in Kush v. Rutledge.
Open the comparison →Audit the full record
Expand each count, review the procedural sequence, compare party positions, and open the source documents directly.
Audit count by count →Two-minute public summary
The shortest accurate account
- The case was adversarial before the final pleading. Facebook, Google, and Kearney had appeared, earlier motions to dismiss and oppositions were on file, and the operative Dkt. 81-1 was served while amendment-related briefing continued.
- The decisive order did two things at once. On May 11, 2021, the court granted the motion to amend, made Dkt. 81-1 the operative complaint, then immediately screened and dismissed that pleading with prejudice. The remaining motions—including pending requests for injunctive and declaratory relief—were denied as moot.
- Ten counts were resolved through grouped reasoning. The order discussed state action under § 1983, conspiracy under §§ 1985 and 1986, RICO predicates and agreement, and supplemental jurisdiction over two state claims. It did not organize the ruling by the complaint’s ten count headings.
- One legal distinction is visible on the face of the documents. Count III expressly invoked the federal-court clause of § 1985(2). The dismissal required protected-class animus while citing a § 1985(3) case. The Supreme Court held in Kush v. Rutledge that the first part of § 1985(2) does not require racial or class-based animus.
- That distinction does not, by itself, establish liability. The court also found no adequately pleaded agreement, no state action, and no qualifying RICO predicates. The narrower point is that the written order did not separate the two § 1985 counts, apply the two clauses independently, or track Count III’s defendant pairing when discussing the alleged agreement.
- The first post-order response did not produce a count-specific merits opinion. Waters filed a Rule 59(e) motion two days later. The court denied it, saying Rule 59 could not be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments. A later Rule 60 motion was also denied. The First Circuit summarily affirmed substantially for the district court’s reasons and said Waters had not identified an amendment capable of curing the deficiencies.
- The judgment remained in place. Rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on February 14, 2022; the mandate issued February 22; and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 3, 2022. A denial of certiorari does not supply a merits explanation or endorse the lower court’s reasoning.
Flagship record comparison
The two § 1985 counts required two different statutory analyses.
This comparison is narrower than a claim that Count III necessarily stated a complete cause of action. It asks whether the dismissal’s protected-class rationale matched the particular clause pleaded.
Five-minute verification
Count III invoked § 1985(2); the order analyzed § 1985 as though one protected-class rule controlled both counts.
What the complaint pleaded
The heading identified “42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) Witness Intimidation / Obstruction of Federal Case” and named Google and Kearney. It alleged an agreement using private online groups, conduct aimed at an active federal case, interference with witnesses and litigation, and resulting injury.
What the district order said
The order used a single paragraph for “Plaintiff’s claim for a conspiracy in violation of § 1985.” It required an agreement to deprive equal protection based on membership in a protected class, cited a case describing § 1985(3), and then discussed Google and Facebook’s alleged profit motive.
What controlling authority says
In Kush v. Rutledge, the Supreme Court distinguished the statute’s clauses and held that the first part of § 1985(2)—covering obstruction and intimidation connected to federal court—contains no racial or otherwise class-based animus requirement.
Defense-side boundary: Facebook’s appellate brief did not claim that Facebook was a Count III defendant; it emphasized that Counts III and VII were not pleaded against Facebook and separately argued that no actionable agreement was alleged. Google’s appellate brief would be necessary to present Google’s complete response to Count III.
Procedural history
What happened, in order
The sequence matters because the operative pleading, the dismissal grounds, and the opportunities to respond did not arrive in the ordinary motion-to-dismiss order.
- October 26, 2020Initial complaint and IFP request filed.
The federal action began in the District of Massachusetts. The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 16.
- November 13–December 11, 2020Emergency relief, service, and defense appearances.
The first ex parte TRO request was denied without prejudice for lack of notice information. Facebook and Google were served November 18. A renewed TRO and preliminary-injunction motion drew written opposition from Google and Facebook.
- January–February 2021Earlier complaints and motions to dismiss.
Facebook and Google moved against the original pleading; Waters filed a first amended complaint; Facebook, Google, and Kearney filed or joined later dismissal briefing; Waters filed oppositions and sought leave to amend again.
- March–April 2021Additional relief requests and the final proposed pleading.
Waters sought an order concerning extrajudicial statements under Local Rule 83.2.2, requested declaratory relief concerning § 230, and revised the proposed complaint. Katherine Peter was served. On April 15, Dkt. 81-1 was filed with exhibits.
- May 11, 2021Amendment granted; case dismissed in the same order.
Dkt. 81-1 became the operative complaint. The court screened it under § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed it with prejudice, denied the remaining motions as moot, certified that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.
- May 13–July 22, 2021Rule 59(e) response and denial.
Waters moved to alter or amend the judgment. Facebook opposed. The court denied relief, stating that Rule 59(e) could not be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments and that the filing attempted both.
- July 29–August 4, 2021Appeal No. 21-1582 opened.
A notice of appeal was filed and the First Circuit docketed the case. The appellate filing fee was paid after the district court’s good-faith certification.
- September 19–October 12, 2021Rule 60(b) and Rule 62.1 proceedings.
Waters sought relief based on alleged misconduct and extraordinary circumstances. Because the appeal was pending, the district court treated the request through the indicative-ruling framework and denied relief on the merits stated in its electronic order.
- October 14–November 19, 2021Principal appellate briefing.
Waters filed the Blue Brief and record appendix. Facebook and Google filed separate appellee briefs. Kearney did not file a brief; the First Circuit ordered that he would not be heard at oral argument absent permission.
- December 20–23, 2021Reply and summary affirmance.
After the reply brief, the panel affirmed under First Circuit Rule 27.0(c), substantially for the district court’s reasons. The judgment said the appeal presented no substantial question and that no curative amendment had been identified.
- January 18–February 22, 2022Rehearing, emergency relief, and mandate.
Waters petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc and sought additional injunctive relief. Both were denied on February 14; the mandate issued February 22. A separate appeal, No. 22-1054, was voluntarily dismissed on Waters’s unopposed motion.
- July 14–October 3, 2022Supreme Court petition and final docket disposition.
A petition for certiorari was filed as No. 22-5133. Facebook and Google waived responses. The Supreme Court denied the petition on October 3 without a merits opinion.
Ten-count coverage map
How each pleaded count appears in the May 11 order
The classifications describe the text of the order. A threshold ruling can be legally dispositive without addressing every downstream element; a “gap” label is reserved for a mismatch or an issue the documents themselves show was not adjudicated.
| Count | Pleaded theory and defendants | Stated district-court treatment | Record classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Implied warranty of merchantability — Facebook and Google | After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction; a footnote rejected diversity jurisdiction. | State merits not reached Facebook later acknowledged that claims declined under § 1367 could not be dismissed with prejudice. |
| II | Gross negligence — Google and Facebook | Same supplemental-jurisdiction disposition as Count I. | State merits not reached No duty, breach, causation, or § 230 analysis became a district-court holding. |
| III | § 1985(2), witness intimidation / obstruction of a federal case — Google and Kearney | One generic § 1985 paragraph required protected-class animus and found no agreement; the concrete motive discussion concerned Google and Facebook. | Clause and party mismatch No separate first-clause analysis under Kush. |
| IV | § 1986, neglect to prevent — Facebook and Google | The order said the pleading did not adequately allege knowing about a § 1985 conspiracy and refusing to prevent it. | Derivative ruling Dependent on the treatment of the underlying § 1985 theories. |
| V | § 1962(c), civil RICO — Kearney | The court listed several alleged acts and held that none was a statutory predicate or pattern of racketeering. | Direct threshold ruling The order addressed qualifying predicates, though not every pleaded passage individually. |
| VI | § 1962(d), RICO conspiracy — Facebook, Google, Kearney, and Peter | The order found no agreement among defendants. | Grouped RICO ruling No separate defendant-by-defendant agreement analysis. |
| VII | § 1985(3), conspiracy to injure because of First Amendment activity / social-justice advocacy — Kearney and Peter | The protected-class and agreement rationale applied more naturally to this count, although the order did not name it. | Rationale fits threshold The class-animus requirement corresponds to § 1985(3). |
| VIII | § 1983, procedural due process — Kearney; body also alleged coordination with state actors | The court held that the private defendants were not state actors and that their conduct was not fairly attributable to the state. | Threshold state-action ruling The dedicated state-action allegations were not discussed paragraph by paragraph. |
| IX | § 1983, Eighth Amendment — Kearney, Peter, Facebook, and Google | Resolved through the same state-action paragraph. | Threshold grouped ruling No separate punishment or Eighth Amendment analysis was necessary if state action failed. |
| X | Declaratory judgment concerning 47 U.S.C. § 230 | No express § 230 merits analysis appears in the order. Facebook later stated that the district court did not reach § 230. | Not separately adjudicated The global dismissal should not be described as a district-court § 230 holding. |
Finality issue: The May 11 order used the global phrase “dismissed with prejudice” after declining supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and II. Facebook’s appellate brief expressly acknowledged that unadjudicated state-law claims declined under § 1367 must be dismissed without prejudice. The First Circuit judgment affirmed without separately modifying that language.
Expandable legal audit
Open only the counts you want to inspect.
Each section separates the pleaded theory, the court’s stated basis, documented opposing positions, and the question left for a reader reviewing the written record.
Count I · Implied warranty of merchantability — state-law merits were not reached
Pleaded theory
The complaint characterized the platforms as products, alleged unsafe design and moderation features, proposed alternative safeguards, and claimed resulting personal, litigation, and economic harm.
Material questions
Whether the services qualified as merchantable goods, whether an implied warranty applied, whether the alleged design defect caused cognizable injury, and how § 230 or other limits would interact with the theory.
Written ruling
The court did not decide those questions. It declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal counts and stated in a footnote that complete diversity was absent.
Record result
This was a jurisdictional disposition, not a merits rejection. Facebook later agreed that a state claim declined under § 1367 could not properly be dismissed with prejudice.
Count II · Gross negligence — pleaded duty and notice, but no state-law merits ruling
Pleaded theory
The complaint alleged that the platforms knew or should have known their services were being used for harassment and witness interference, received specific notices, failed to use reasonable safeguards, and proximately caused injury.
Material questions
Existence and scope of a duty, gross departure from reasonable care, causation, recoverable damages, and whether the claim treated the platforms as publishers of third-party content or challenged independent conduct and product design.
Written ruling
The district court did not analyze duty, breach, causation, damages, or § 230. It declined supplemental jurisdiction together with Count I.
Record result
Any description that the district court held § 230 barred Count II would go beyond the order. Facebook argued § 230 as an alternative basis on appeal, but also stated the district court had not reached it.
Count III · § 1985(2) federal-court obstruction — wrong-clause concern plus an independent agreement issue
Pleaded theory
The count alleged a conspiracy using private Facebook or Discord groups, threats and public targeting connected to the federal case, interference with witnesses and Waters’s ability to litigate, and resulting injury.
Material questions
Which clause applied; whether facts plausibly showed an agreement between the named defendants; whether conduct was intended to deter or injure a party or witness in federal court; and whether the alleged obstruction caused compensable injury.
Written ruling
The generic § 1985 paragraph required protected-class animus and found no agreement. It cited § 1985(3) authority and did not identify Count III, the federal-court clause, or the Google/Kearney pairing.
Balanced audit
Kush removes class animus as a requirement for the first part of § 1985(2), but it does not remove the need to plead conspiracy, federal-proceeding nexus, causation, and injury. The written order left those issues without a Count III-specific analysis.
Count IV · § 1986 neglect to prevent — derivative dismissal without a notice-by-notice discussion
Pleaded theory
The complaint alleged that platform counsel and reporting systems received notice of threats and obstruction, that the companies had moderation and distribution powers capable of reducing the harm, and that they neglected or refused to act.
Material questions
Existence of a viable § 1985 conspiracy, actual knowledge, power to prevent or aid in preventing the wrong, neglect or refusal, and resulting damages.
Written ruling
The order said Facebook and Google were not adequately alleged to know of a § 1985 conspiracy and refuse to prevent it. No separate discussion identified which notices, powers, or alleged responses were insufficient.
Defense position
Facebook argued that Count IV failed because the underlying conspiracy was deficient and the complaint did not plausibly allege Facebook’s knowledge and power to prevent it. Google’s complete appellate position is not in the supplied document set.
Count V · Civil RICO under § 1962(c) — the order directly rejected qualifying predicates
Pleaded theory
The complaint alleged an association-in-fact enterprise, repeated use of online properties, obstruction and retaliation as asserted predicate conduct, a continuing pattern, and loss to business or property.
Material questions
A qualifying enterprise distinct from the person, participation in its affairs, at least two statutory racketeering predicates forming a pattern, and proximate business-or-property injury.
Written ruling
The court identified several alleged threats, obstruction incidents, platform non-removal, and retaliation examples, then held that none constituted a predicate act under § 1961 or a pattern of racketeering.
Audit result
This was the order’s most count-responsive merits discussion. A fuller opinion could have matched each asserted federal obstruction or retaliation statute to § 1961’s predicate list, but the core reason—no qualifying predicates—was stated.
Count VI · RICO conspiracy under § 1962(d) — grouped rejection for lack of agreement
Pleaded theory
The complaint alleged that individuals and platforms shared financial incentives, distribution systems, knowledge, and a common purpose that supported an inferred agreement to facilitate a RICO scheme.
Material questions
Whether each defendant knowingly agreed that a conspirator would conduct an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, and whether the factual allegations showed more than parallel incentives, service provision, or failure to intervene.
Written ruling
The order held that no agreement among defendants was adequately alleged. It did not separately compare the allegations against each individual and platform.
Defense position
Facebook argued that profit motive and continued hosting did not create a conspiratorial agreement and noted that the opening brief did not develop a challenge to the RICO dismissal. That appellate waiver argument does not replace the district court’s stated reason, but it affected review.
Count VII · § 1985(3) political / First Amendment conspiracy — the protected-class rationale fits this clause
Pleaded theory
The count alleged that Kearney and Peter used disguised or fake profiles to punish and deter Waters for speech, litigation, and willingness to advocate for social justice.
Material questions
A conspiratorial agreement, purpose to deprive equal protection or equal privileges, class-based invidious animus recognized by governing law, an act in furtherance, and injury.
Written ruling
The court required protected-class animus and found no sufficient agreement. Although Count VII was not identified by number, that legal standard corresponds to § 1985(3).
Audit result
The principal drafting problem is not use of the animus requirement for Count VII; it is the compression of Count VII together with the separate federal-court clause in Count III.
Count VIII · § 1983 procedural due process — threshold state-action ruling
Pleaded theory
The count and incorporated state-action section alleged exchanges of official information, support or tolerance by police and state actors, witness deterrence, and a resulting deprivation of the ability to defend and litigate fairly.
Material questions
Whether the private conduct was fairly attributable to the state under a recognized test, whether a protected liberty or property interest was deprived, what process was due, and causation.
Written ruling
The court held that the private defendants were not state actors and that their conduct was not fairly attributable to the state. That threshold ruling was sufficient to end a § 1983 claim if correct.
Record question
The order did not discuss the dedicated state-action paragraphs, identify which attribution theory they invoked, or explain why the alleged official communications and asserted joint activity did not satisfy any test. Facebook argued those contacts were still insufficient.
Count IX · § 1983 Eighth Amendment — state action was dispositive; the punishment theory was not reached
Pleaded theory
The count characterized state-enabled public shaming, repeated accusations, algorithmic distribution, threats, and livelihood interference as cruel and unusual punishment carried out under color of law.
Material questions
State action; whether the challenged conduct constituted governmental punishment within the Eighth Amendment’s scope; personal participation; and causation.
Written ruling
The court resolved Count IX through the same lack-of-state-action paragraph used for the other § 1983 theories. It did not reach whether the alleged conduct could count as Eighth Amendment punishment.
Balanced audit
The unreached punishment question posed a serious doctrinal obstacle. The narrower process point is that the judgment should be understood as a state-action dismissal, not a reasoned holding that every alleged act was constitutionally permissible.
Count X · Declaratory judgment concerning § 230 — no district-court merits holding
Pleaded theory
The complaint sought a declaration that broad interpretations of § 230 were unconstitutional on their face or as applied, or alternatively that the statute did not create distributor immunity for the alleged conduct.
Material questions
Standing and justiciability, proper parties, whether § 230 actually barred the pleaded claims, the distinction between publisher liability and independent conduct, and the availability and scope of declaratory relief.
Written ruling
The May 11 order did not mention Count X or decide the meaning or constitutionality of § 230. Facebook’s appellate brief expressly said the district court had not reached the parties’ § 230 arguments.
Defense position
Facebook urged affirmance without reaching § 230 and argued in the alternative that the statute protected it because the claims sought to impose publisher liability for user-created content.
Procedural junctions
Where the record became hardest to test
These are documentary sequences, not a claim that an appellate court found a due-process violation.
1 · The operative pleading and the dismissal grounds arrived in the same order
The court had authority to screen an IFP complaint “at any time.” The practical consequence here was that the court’s own final formulation of the defects became a judgment before Waters could respond to those particular grounds as applied to the newly operative pleading.
2 · The first response to the stated grounds was characterized as relitigation or new argument
Waters filed the Rule 59(e) motion on May 13, two days after the dismissal. The July 22 electronic order said Rule 59(e) may not be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments and concluded that the motion attempted both.
“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, [or] to raise arguments.”
The tension is chronological: the count-specific dismissal rationale first appeared in Dkt. 89, and the Rule 59 filing was the first paper directed at that final rationale. The order did not distinguish arguments that could have been made against earlier defense motions from arguments responding to the court’s new grouping and clause selection.
3 · Rule 60 was denied during the pending appeal, then excluded from appellate review for lack of a later notice
Waters filed a Rule 60(b) motion on September 19. The district court stated that the pending appeal removed ordinary jurisdiction, treated the request under Rule 62.1’s indicative-ruling procedure, and denied relief. It found no fraud or extraordinary circumstance sufficient to reopen the judgment and said the alleged conduct had not prevented Waters from pursuing the case.
The First Circuit later said the Rule 60 order was not properly before it because no new or amended notice of appeal followed that October 12 order. This is a jurisdictional disposition: the appellate judgment did not adopt the Rule 60 merits analysis after full review.
4 · The First Circuit affirmed summarily rather than writing a count-by-count opinion
The panel said it had conducted de novo review of relevant portions of the record and sufficiently developed arguments. It affirmed “substantially for the reasons stated by the district court” under First Circuit Rule 27.0(c), found no substantial question, held that no curative amendment had been identified, and found no abuse of discretion in the Rule 59 ruling.
The judgment confirms the outcome. It does not independently resolve the Count III clause distinction, Count X, the state-claim prejudice issue, or each defendant and count in separate reasoning. The petition for rehearing presented some of those issues; rehearing was denied without a merits opinion.
5 · The record uses three names for the same operative document
Dkt. 81-1 is titled the Third Proposed Second Amended Verified Complaint. The district court called it the proposed Second Amended Complaint and made it operative. The First Circuit judgment referred to a fourth amended complaint. For reliable navigation, this page uses the stable docket identifier: Dkt. 81-1.
This naming difference does not affect the substantive audit, but resolving it in the source guide prevents readers from assuming that a separate operative complaint is missing.
Parties and documented positions
What each side asked the courts to accept
No position is attributed to a party unless it appears in the supplied filings or public docket.
Waters’s position
The complaint alleged a connected course of state-linked public shaming, witness intimidation, platform notice and amplification, obstruction of civil and federal proceedings, and resulting litigation, health, and economic injury. On appeal, Waters challenged state action, conspiracy, the § 1985 clause analysis, dismissal with prejudice, § 230, and the lack of a pre-judgment opportunity to answer the court’s grounds.
Facebook’s position
Facebook argued that it was not a state actor, that Counts III and VII were not pleaded against Facebook, that no actionable conspiracy or § 1986 knowledge was alleged, and that RICO failed. It said the court could dismiss at any time under § 1915, that five complaint versions and ten motions supplied a full opportunity to be heard, and that § 230 would protect Facebook even though the district court did not reach it.
Facebook also acknowledged that the state-law claims could not be dismissed with prejudice after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
Google’s position
Google filed district-court papers and a separate First Circuit appellee brief on November 16, 2021. The supplied source set does not include that appellate brief, so this page does not reconstruct Google’s response to Count III, Count IV, RICO, state action, or § 230 from Facebook’s arguments.
Record need: Google’s brief is the most important missing adversarial document for a final version of this page.
Kearney’s position
Kearney filed district-court papers, including opposition connected to the proposed operative complaint. In the First Circuit, he did not file an appellee brief by the deadline. The court ordered that he would not be heard at oral argument except by permission.
This page therefore distinguishes district-court arguments attributed to Kearney from appellate positions; it does not infer an appellate defense that was never filed.
Decision boundaries
What each tribunal decided—and what it did not explain
Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Decided: no plausible § 1983 state action; no sufficient § 1985 agreement and protected-class basis; no adequate § 1986 claim; no RICO predicates, pattern, or agreement; supplemental jurisdiction declined; no claims stated against several named defendants; case dismissed with prejudice.
Not separately decided: Count III under the federal clause identified in Kush; Count X’s § 230 merits; state-law merits; every injunction factor; a count-by-count futility analysis.
Summary affirmance under Rule 27.0(c)
Decided: the relevant developed arguments presented no substantial question; dismissal was affirmed substantially for the district court’s reasons; no curative amendment was identified; Rule 59 denial was not an abuse; Rule 60 was outside the appeal; requested appellate relief was denied.
Not supplied: an independent count-by-count discussion resolving the clause distinction, Count X, or the state-claim prejudice language.
Certiorari denied
Decided: the petition would not be heard.
Not decided: whether the First Circuit or district court reasoning was correct. The one-line denial contains no merits analysis and should not be presented as an endorsement of any disputed legal or factual proposition.
The documentary takeaway: The federal judgment is final, but the written record remains unusually compressed relative to the ten-count pleading. The strongest public presentation is therefore not a claim about motive. It is a precise comparison showing which threshold grounds were stated, which claims they fit, and which material distinctions never received their own explanation.
Evidence without forced exposure
Start with rulings and briefs; open sensitive exhibits only when needed.
Every linked exhibit is described as a party-filed exhibit, not a judicial finding. Explicit or disturbing images are not embedded on this page.
Use these first
Compare the developed arguments
Open selectively
Controlling and official sources
Related case pages
Records that would strengthen the final pass
What is still needed—and why it matters
The goal is not to add volume. It is to close the specific gaps that prevent a fully adversarial, document-by-document account.
Complete the opposing and exhibit record
- Google’s First Circuit appellee brief, filed November 16, 2021. This is essential for Google’s response to Count III, § 1986, state action, RICO, § 230, and procedure.
- The complete Dkt. 81 exhibit set, especially Exhibits B, C, and H, plus a docket-to-file index showing which upload corresponds to Dkt. 81-2 through 81-9.
- Google’s and Kearney’s amendment-related papers, including Dkt. 82 and Dkt. 86 and any replies at Dkt. 83 and Dkt. 88, because those were the closest adversarial responses to Dkt. 81-1 before dismissal.
- A complete district docket through final closure, with standalone copies of Dkt. 89, 93, 99, the order underlying Dkt. 115, and the March 9, 2022 post-judgment order.
Show the full district-court adversarial history
- Google’s motions and supporting memoranda against the original and first amended complaints, and Waters’s full oppositions.
- Kearney’s motion-to-dismiss papers and Waters’s response, including service and any argument about the specific counts pleaded against him.
- The complete emergency-relief papers: Dkt. 17–19, all defense oppositions, Dkt. 71–71-2, Dkt. 75 and attachments, and any later replies.
- Native or standalone copies of Dkt. 90 judgment, Dkt. 92 Facebook Rule 59 opposition, and Dkt. 98-3 affidavit, even though selected copies appear inside Facebook’s appendix.
Finish the appellate and evidence chain
- The full Supreme Court certiorari petition, appendix, waiver letters, and extension application in a local, stable archive.
- The underlying order, notice of appeal, voluntary-dismissal motion, and judgment in First Circuit No. 22-1054 so that the collateral appeal is described by subject, not only docket outcome.
- First Circuit injunction, investigation, supplementation, and rehearing-related motions and responses, including Google’s and Facebook’s filings.
- Source-format media, metadata, declarations, or authentication records corresponding to screenshot exhibits. Sensitive material should remain click-through rather than embedded.
Most persuasive next addition: Google’s appellate brief and the Dkt. 82 / Dkt. 86 amendment papers. They would allow the page to test the Count III, state-action, and § 230 issues against every developed opposing argument instead of relying on Facebook’s position or the court’s compressed summary.
Why this record matters beyond one case: Screening can be necessary, and summary affirmance can be lawful. The institutional risk appears when a multi-count pleading is terminated through compressed categories, a clause-specific rule is not visibly separated, pending safety requests become moot, and the first answer to the court’s own rationale is treated as relitigation. Minimal, count-responsive findings would make the result easier to understand, correct, defend, or appeal—whichever the record warrants.
Waters vs Facebook
Case analysis first, then filings in chronological order.
Exhibit H Facebook harassment
Exhibit G Evidence Sam didn’t want to sign affidavit
Exhibit E Defendant attacks roommate
Exhibit D superimposed porn of witness
Exhibit F Defendant Suspended for harassment on Facebook
Rian’s TRO PI Motion 3-2020CV30168 11 25 2020
SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
SAVC EXHIBIT A
Memorandum Rule 60b Motion 09 19 2021
-
p. 5 — Sua Sponte Dismissal Legal Standard Shows that case law showing proper legal standard was presented to the court