Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-08760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones, Judge Furman maintained dismissal of copyright claims and denied Baker’s request to amend.
Ralph W. Baker Jr.’s copyright claims remain dismissed, and his request to amend the complaint was denied. Nikole Hannah-Jones and the other defendants are affected by the continued dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Ralph W. Baker Jr. v. Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., the court had dismissed Baker’s copyright-infringement case after he did not respond by the deadline to an order requiring him to explain why the case should continue. Baker’s response was filed after that deadline.
The court said the response would not have changed the result even if it had been timely. It found that Baker had not plausibly alleged enough similarity between his work and the defendants’ works, which the court said differed greatly in their overall concept, feel, plot, themes, and pacing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman maintained the dismissal, denied Baker’s request to amend the complaint, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones · No. 1:24-cv-08760
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
On January 15, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing Ralph W. Baker Jr.’s case on its own initiative for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Before that, the court had ordered Baker to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed and required a response by January 9, 2025. The court had warned that failing to respond by that deadline could result in dismissal without further notice.
Baker did not file anything by January 9. His response was entered on the docket on January 15 and was dated January 10. The court stated that dismissal was therefore appropriate, and noted that Baker’s status as a self-represented litigant did not explain the missed deadline.
Copyright Claims
The court also considered the substance of Baker’s response. It maintained its earlier conclusion that Baker’s copyright-infringement claims failed because he had not alleged substantial similarity between his work and the allegedly infringing works. The court said the works differed dramatically in total concept and overall feel, as well as in elements that could be compared separately, including plot, themes, and pacing. The court found that the lack of similarity continued in the comparisons Baker identified in his response and was fatal to all of his claims.
Request to Amend
Baker asked for permission to amend his complaint to address the court’s concern that some or all of his claims might be time barred. The court explained that amendment may be denied when it would be futile—that is, when the proposed amendment would not fix the legal problem. Baker said only that he would sharply reduce the number of defendants and co-defendants. The court found that reducing the number of defendants would not cure the substantive deficiencies in his copyright claims. It therefore DENIED Baker’s request for leave to amend.
Disposition
The court maintained the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Baker permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.