Jackson v. UPC/GSI

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 John Edward Jackson, Case No. 2:23-cv-00457-MMD-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 UPC/GCI

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pro se Plaintiff John Jackson is currently incarcerated at the Clark County Detention 11 Center. This Court previously dismissed his complaint without prejudice based on its inability to 12 discern what claims Mr. Jackson was alleging. ECF No. 5. Before the Court is his amended 13 complaint. ECF No. 7. 14 I. Screening Standard 15 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 17 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 18 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 20 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 21 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 22 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 24 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 25 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 26 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 27 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 1 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 2 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 3 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 4 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. But 5 unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 6 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 7 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 8 II. Screening the Complaint 9 Mr. Jackson alleges he owns a copyright for a textbook titled “Vibration and Impulse 10 Communication Explained.” As best as this Court can tell, Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant is 11 selling barcodes that are identical to those that appear in his book. 12 To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove two elements: “(1) ownership 13 of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist 14 Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). 15 Liberally construing the complaint, Mr. Jackson has stated a claim for relief. He meets the 16 first element by alleging he is the owner of a valid copyright to his book. In addition, he meets the 17 second element by alleging Defendant is copying barcodes that appear in his book. 18 III. Conclusion 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement may 20 proceed against Defendant UPC/GSI. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff one blank copy 22 of form USM-285. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days to fill out the required 24 USM-285 form and send it to the U.S. Marshals Service. On the form, Plaintiff must fill in 25 defendant’s last-known address. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for 27 the Defendant. ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve a copy of this order, the issued 2 || summons, and the operative complaint (ECF No. 7) on the U.S. Marshals Service. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the USM-285 form, the U.S. Marshals 4 || Service shall, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), attempt service on the 5 || Defendant. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 90 days of this Order, the U.S. Marshals Service 7 || shall file the summons returned as executed or a notice indicating why service has not been 8 || effectuated. 9 10 DATED: April 25, 2023. ry la we bon BRENDA WEKSLER 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28