(PS) Douglas v. Paramount Global ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANJON MAREQUIS DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-2509 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be 21 GRANTED. 22 I. SCREENING 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 27 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 28 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain 1 statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, 2 rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 3 relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 8 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 10 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 11 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 12 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 13 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 14 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 15 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 17 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 18 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 19 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 20 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 21 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 22 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 23 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 25 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 26 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 27 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 28 //// 1 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 2 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 A. The Complaint 4 Plaintiff sues defendant for stealing his intellectual by copying his life to make the movie 5 “Coach Carter.” ECF No. 1 at 6-7. Though the handwriting is difficult to decipher, plaintiff 6 alleges in his very brief complaint that defendant is observing his life and putting it in film.1 7 Plaintiff claims that the events that occur in the movie “Coach Carter” are like events that have 8 occurred in his own life. Id. 9 B. Analysis 10 Plaintiff does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and his complaint must 11 be dismissed. The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against 12 any defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of delusional allegations. The 13 contents of the complaint make it apparent that amendment would be futile. The undersigned will 14 therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448. 15 II. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 17 pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED but that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with 18 prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is further 19 recommended that leave to amend not be granted because amendment would be futile. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 24 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 25 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 26 1 Plaintiff brought several other lawsuits against production companies with the same premise, 27 that his life is being watched and turned into films, and that he is owed compensation based on the various films’ box office success. See, e.g., Douglas v. Universal Pictures, 2:23-cv-2327 28 KJM AC; Douglas v. Walt Disney, 2:23-cv-2328 TLN AC. 1 2 || order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 3 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: November 1, 2023 ~ 5 Cthten— Lape ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28