Muhammad v. Motorola Incorporated ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Esa Muhammad a.k.a. Bandele Hinton, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11
)
Motorola, Incorporated et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a
determination that it, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff, who lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Columbia, alleges in
his one-page complaint that in May 2000, he "signed a disclosure statement while completing my
employment with [defendant] Motorola, Inc," in which he "stated all activity to date on my
invention known as Smartech Solutions." Plaintiff further alleges that after he was laid off,
Motorola "stole [his] intellectual property" "by forming [defendant] Motorola Solutions, Inc.[,]
and Motorola Mobility, Inc .. " Plaintiff seeks $50 million in damages.
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir.
2004). A plaintiff s "[ fJactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level .... " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted); see Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8,16 n. 4 (D.C. Cir.
2008) ("We have never accepted 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations'
because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.")
(quoting Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994».
Plaintiff has not alleged that he has obtained a patent for his alleged invention. He
therefore has neither stated a cognizable claim nor established his legal standing to sue. See
Acme Highway Products Corp. v. Maurer, 525 F. Supp. 1130 (D.D.C. 1981) ('"The "case or
controversy' requirement [under the Declaratory Judgment Act] is met in patent cases when a
'claim or charge of infringement has been made, directly or indirectly' by the person entitled to
enforce the patent.") (citation omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Date: September J, 2011
United States District Judge
2