Justin v. Trump Jr.

Background

Malik Justin, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Donald Trump Jr. and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. On the application, Justin answered “No” to every question he answered, indicating that he had no assets or income, but he left Question 1 and Questions 8 through 10 unanswered. The court found the application incomplete and lacking enough information to determine whether the answers provided were credible.

Justin alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, a federal stalking statute, and 35 U.S.C. § 271, the federal patent-infringement statute. His claims consisted of a short statement alleging an unauthorized use or sale of a patented invention and threats to kill or injure and harassment. The complaint included no factual allegations explaining what happened.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that, if it granted Justin’s fee-waiver application, it would be required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it stated a claim for relief. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, a complaint must contain facts supporting a plausible claim rather than only legal conclusions or conclusory statements.

The court identified two problems with the stalking claim. First, it stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not provide a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot sue under that statute. Second, Justin alleged threats and harassment only in conclusory terms and provided no details, such as when the conduct occurred or what the harassment involved. The court stated that any amended claim would need to identify a law that allows a private lawsuit and include supporting facts.

The court also found that Justin had not alleged enough facts to support the patent claim. To proceed, he would need to state what patent, if any, he owns and what conduct by Donald Trump Jr. allegedly infringed it.

Order

The court ordered Justin to show cause—in other words, to explain—why his fee-waiver application should not be denied and why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Justin must file by May 28, 2025: (1) a response answering every question omitted from the fee-waiver application and explaining how he meets his basic needs if he truly has no assets or income; and (2) either an amended complaint stating the facts supporting his claims or a response arguing that the current complaint is sufficient.

The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the current complaint and must include all claims and facts Justin wants to pursue. If he does not correct the identified defects, the magistrate judge may recommend denial of the fee-waiver application or dismissal of the complaint. If he does not respond at all, the magistrate judge may recommend dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The order itself did not deny the application or dismiss the complaint.