John Doe v. Webster ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------x JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against- 20-CV-6121(EK)(RML) JACQUES BERMAN WEBSTER II, Defendant. -------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff “John Doe” filed this complaint against Jacques Berman Webster II, a recording artist who performs under the name Travis Scott. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Webster used “mind control tactics” against him at a concert of Webster’s in Brooklyn, in an effort to undermine Plaintiff’s “debut musical project” called “Lowkey.” Plaintiff previously filed similar actions against recording artists Robyn Fenty (Rhianna), Doe v. Fenty, 20-CV-2461, and Aubrey Graham (Drake), Doe v. Graham, 20-CV-4069, which the Court dismissed in an Order dated October 16, 2020.1 Order, 20-CV-2461, ECF No. 7; Order, 20-CV-2461, ECF No. 5. For the same reasons stated in the Court’s October 16th Order, this fee-paid action is dismissed 1 Plaintiff uses the pseudonym “John Doe” in these lawsuits. However, the complaints in each case are formatted nearly identically and they have similar claims — including that various recording artists are sabotaging Plaintiff’s “Lowkey” project. This suggests that the same “John Doe” filed all three lawsuits. as frivolous. Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (“An action is frivolous when “either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”). In addition, the Court concludes that it would be futile to grant leave to amend. See O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 294 F.3d 55, 69 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[A] district court may deny leave to amend the complaint if the amendment would be futile.”). The complaint is therefore dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff, enter judgment, and close this case. In the event that Plaintiff elects to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from this Order, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any such appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. _/s Eric Komitee__________ ERIC KOMITEE United States District Judge Dated: January 20, 2021 Brooklyn, New York