1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONNELL BLEDSOE, Case No. 21-cv-02604-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO 9 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT 10 SHAWN GRANBERRY, et al., TO 28 U.S.C § 1915 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 13
12 13 Plaintiff, proceeding without representation by a lawyer, initiated this action in the Eastern 14 District of California. The matter was transferred to this District before a final ruling on Plaintiff’s 15 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or review of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 16 (“SAC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 13, 14.) Having considered the Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application. (Dkt. No. 3.) The 18 Court must now review the SAC’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff’s 19 complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2) the Court gives Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. 21 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff’s suit names Defendants Shawn Granberry, Thomas D. McElroy, and Jay 23 Williams. Defendants Granberry and McElroy are part of Plaintiff’s extended family, and he has 24 seen them at many family gatherings over the years. Plaintiff alleges he “started my creation that 25 is copyrighted [on] August 8, 2010,” which appears to refer to a documentary film that he 26 published through a venture called Music Don Juan Bledsoe Music Entertainment. (Dkt. No. 13 at 27 1.) After Defendants launched a venture called Hip Hop T.V. in September 2015, Plaintiff alleges 1 Defendants Granberry and McElroy were friends with Plaintiff on Facebook from 2010 to 2018 2 and had access to material that he posted there. Plaintiff connected with Defendant Williams 3 through Defendant Granberry, and Defendant Williams was friends with Plaintiff on Facebook for 4 about six months in 2018. Plaintiff “unfriended” all three Defendants in 2018 when he “found out 5 that [they] were stealing my ideas for their product Hip Hop T.V.” (Id. at 3.) He alleges they 6 “willfully and maliciously stole and copied my style in the music video entertainment field,” (id. 7 at 6), “based off the ongoing competition between Hip Hop T.V. and Music Don Juan Bledsoe 8 Music Entertainment,” (id. at 4). 9 Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract and copyright infringement, as well as 10 statutory damages for violations of 17 U.S.C. § 504. Three exhibits are attached to the SAC:1 (1) 11 a flash drive containing Plaintiff’s documentary; (2) a copyright registration for a work titled 12 “THE EASTERN STAR FEDERATION WARSHIP FW7 477,” effective November 6, 2019; and 13 (3) a copyright registration for a work the title of which begins “GOD’S CHILD SPIRITUAL 14 ANALYST,” effective November 5, 2019. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 17 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 20 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege 21 facts that plausibly establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 22 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 23 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 24 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 25 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 26 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 27 1 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 2 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in 3 pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 4 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 5 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 6 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s 7 rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, No. 20-CV- 8 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. 9 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 10 Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe 11 the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to 12 the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this 14 District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 15 DISCUSSION 16 To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing (1) 17 the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and 18 (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of Am., 442 P.2d 377, 381 (Cal. 19 1968). The SAC does not allege facts showing that Plaintiff and Defendants had any kind of 20 agreement or what Defendants did to breach that agreement. 21 To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing 22 (1) that he owns a valid copyright in the work, and (2) “copying” and “unlawful appropriation.” 23 Skidmore for Randy Craig Wolfe Trust v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (en 24 banc). For “copying,” the alleged facts must plausibly show, directly, that the defendant copied 25 or, circumstantially, that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and the works are 26 strikingly similar. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONNELL BLEDSOE, Case No. 21-cv-02604-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO 9 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT 10 SHAWN GRANBERRY, et al., TO 28 U.S.C § 1915 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 13
12 13 Plaintiff, proceeding without representation by a lawyer, initiated this action in the Eastern 14 District of California. The matter was transferred to this District before a final ruling on Plaintiff’s 15 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or review of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 16 (“SAC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 13, 14.) Having considered the Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application. (Dkt. No. 3.) The 18 Court must now review the SAC’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff’s 19 complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2) the Court gives Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. 21 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff’s suit names Defendants Shawn Granberry, Thomas D. McElroy, and Jay 23 Williams. Defendants Granberry and McElroy are part of Plaintiff’s extended family, and he has 24 seen them at many family gatherings over the years. Plaintiff alleges he “started my creation that 25 is copyrighted [on] August 8, 2010,” which appears to refer to a documentary film that he 26 published through a venture called Music Don Juan Bledsoe Music Entertainment. (Dkt. No. 13 at 27 1.) After Defendants launched a venture called Hip Hop T.V. in September 2015, Plaintiff alleges 1 Defendants Granberry and McElroy were friends with Plaintiff on Facebook from 2010 to 2018 2 and had access to material that he posted there. Plaintiff connected with Defendant Williams 3 through Defendant Granberry, and Defendant Williams was friends with Plaintiff on Facebook for 4 about six months in 2018. Plaintiff “unfriended” all three Defendants in 2018 when he “found out 5 that [they] were stealing my ideas for their product Hip Hop T.V.” (Id. at 3.) He alleges they 6 “willfully and maliciously stole and copied my style in the music video entertainment field,” (id. 7 at 6), “based off the ongoing competition between Hip Hop T.V. and Music Don Juan Bledsoe 8 Music Entertainment,” (id. at 4). 9 Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract and copyright infringement, as well as 10 statutory damages for violations of 17 U.S.C. § 504. Three exhibits are attached to the SAC:1 (1) 11 a flash drive containing Plaintiff’s documentary; (2) a copyright registration for a work titled 12 “THE EASTERN STAR FEDERATION WARSHIP FW7 477,” effective November 6, 2019; and 13 (3) a copyright registration for a work the title of which begins “GOD’S CHILD SPIRITUAL 14 ANALYST,” effective November 5, 2019. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 17 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 20 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege 21 facts that plausibly establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 22 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 23 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 24 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 25 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 26 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 27 1 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 2 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in 3 pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 4 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 5 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 6 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s 7 rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, No. 20-CV- 8 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. 9 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 10 Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe 11 the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to 12 the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this 14 District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 15 DISCUSSION 16 To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing (1) 17 the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and 18 (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff. Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of Am., 442 P.2d 377, 381 (Cal. 19 1968). The SAC does not allege facts showing that Plaintiff and Defendants had any kind of 20 agreement or what Defendants did to breach that agreement. 21 To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing 22 (1) that he owns a valid copyright in the work, and (2) “copying” and “unlawful appropriation.” 23 Skidmore for Randy Craig Wolfe Trust v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (en 24 banc). For “copying,” the alleged facts must plausibly show, directly, that the defendant copied 25 or, circumstantially, that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and the works are 26 strikingly similar. Id. For “unlawful appropriation,” the alleged facts must plausibly show that 27 specific elements of the works are objectively similar and that an ordinary observer would view 1 The SAC adequately alleges the first element; although the titles of the copyrighted works 2 do not make clear which corresponds to Plaintiff’s documentary, liberally construed the SAC does 3 show that Plaintiff owns a valid copyright. However, it fails to allege facts to support the second 4 element. Plaintiff does not identify or describe a particular work or works published by 5 Defendants. For this reason, the SAC does not give Defendants fair notice of the basis for 6 Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. Additionally, Plaintiff states that Defendants’ work was 7 similar to his and that they copied his style, but these are conclusory. The SAC does not allege 8 specific facts to show how and to what extent any of Defendants’ works were similar to Plaintiff’s. 9 See W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981) (the court need not accept as 10 true conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations). 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons described above, the SAC as pleaded does not comply with Rule 8. 13 Although Plaintiff has had the opportunity to amend several times since filing his original 14 complaint, (see Dkt. Nos. 5, 12, 13), since the case has been transferred Plaintiff can now make 15 use of additional resources in this District to adequately amend his complaint. Therefore, leave to 16 amend is appropriate. Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez, 203 17 F.3d at 1127. The Court encourages Mr. Bledsoe to seek free assistance from the Northern 18 District’s Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, 19 CA 94102. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Bledsoe should make a telephone 20 appointment by calling (415) 782-8982. 21 If he chooses to amend, Plaintiff should: set forth the complaint’s allegations in separate 22 numbered paragraphs; set forth each claim in a separate numbered paragraph; and identify each 23 factual allegation that supports each claim for relief. Additionally, Plaintiff is informed that the 24 Court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. The 25 amended complaint must be complete in itself because it replaces the previously filed complaints. 26 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the amended complaint 27 should contain all the defendants, claims, and specific factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to 1 Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or any court order could result in a report and recommendation 2 || that his complaint be dismissed. 3 The deadline to file a third amended complaint is July 28, 2021. 4 This Order disposes of Docket No. 3. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 28, 2021 4 g ne JAYQUELINE SCOTT CORL 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 q 12
Q 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28