Rivers v. Multacom Corporation

Background

Maurice D. Rivers, proceeding without a lawyer, sought to bring claims under the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act against Multacom Corporation and Dawgpound.com. His original complaint alleged that the defendants uploaded pornographic videos of him to Facebook from 2009 through 2012. After the court directed him to explain why the claims should not be dismissed as time barred, Rivers filed a declaration stating that the alleged violations were ongoing. He later filed a supplemental pleading, but it did not name any defendants or provide information about recent alleged violations.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening standards for a complaint filed without prepayment of fees. Under those standards, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement of facts showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court found that Rivers’s allegations did not satisfy Rule 8. He did not allege facts describing the events that led to the defendants’ alleged uploading of the videos. Instead, he stated only in general terms that the defendants had participated in the illegal uploading of intimate videos. The court therefore granted him leave to file an amended complaint stating facts connecting the defendants to the alleged violations.

Required amendment

The court instructed Rivers to name each defendant in both the caption and the statement of claim. The amended complaint must provide, for each claim and defendant, the relevant facts; what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do; the approximate date, time, and general location of each event; Rivers’s injuries; and the relief sought. It must include any facts or claims from the original complaint that Rivers wants the court to consider because the amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Rivers leave to file an amended complaint and directed him to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-5585 (LTS). The conclusion states that he must do so within 60 days of the order and warns that failure to comply, absent good cause, will result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. Earlier in the order, however, the court states that it grants 30 days’ leave to amend. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied eligibility to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.