Justin v. Taylor
- James Donato
- 3:25-cv-03788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Malik Justin v. Taylor, Judge Cisneros ordered Justin to explain his financial application and support his patent claim.
Malik M. Justin, whose request to proceed without paying filing fees and patent-infringement complaint were found deficient, but were not yet finally denied or dismissed. Jayceon Terrell Taylor is the defendant named in the complaint.
What happened
Malik M. Justin v. Jayceon Terrell Taylor concerns Justin’s request to proceed without paying court fees. The court found his financial application incomplete because he left questions unanswered and provided information that was not enough to assess whether his answers were credible.
The court also found that Justin’s patent-infringement claim contained no supporting facts and did not clearly request any relief. It ordered him to explain what patent he owns, how Taylor allegedly infringed it, and the facts supporting any other claim he wants to pursue.
Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ordered Justin to file a response and either an amended complaint or an explanation of why the current complaint is sufficient. The order did not dismiss the case or deny the fee application; it warned that the court may recommend those actions if Justin does not correct the identified problems.
The detailed version
- Justin v. Taylor · No. 3:25-cv-03788
- James Donato
- May 7, 2025
Background
Malik M. Justin, representing himself, applied to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees. He answered “No” or “N/A” to every question he answered on the application, indicating that he had no assets or income, but he left unanswered questions about expenses, debts, and related cases. The court found the application incomplete and insufficient to determine whether the answers provided were credible.
Justin’s complaint asserted one claim for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The claim stated: “Infriment patented Invention Make uses offers to sells illegally without permission plus His threating to kill and injury along with harass.” Justin left the complaint’s requested-relief section blank. The court said he provided no factual allegations explaining the claim and directed him to identify, among other things, any patent he owns and what Jayceon Terrell Taylor allegedly did to infringe it.
Justin also cited 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, apparently referring to the federal stalking statute. The court explained that criminal laws generally may be enforced only by the federal government, and that there is no private right of action under § 2261A.
Order
The court ordered Justin to show cause—that is, to explain—why his application to proceed without paying fees should not be denied. It also ordered him to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the fee application is granted.
The conclusion directed Justin to file a response addressing the missing financial questions and explaining how he meets his basic needs, along with either an amended complaint stating the supporting facts or a response arguing that the current complaint is sufficient. The order stated that an amended complaint would replace the current complaint and must include all facts and claims Justin wants to pursue.
The order did not itself deny the fee application or dismiss the complaint. It warned that, if Justin did not correct the identified defects, the magistrate judge would recommend denying the application or dismissing the complaint. It also warned that failure to respond could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The opinion contains inconsistent filing deadlines: its discussion sections refer to May 26, 2025, while the conclusion says Justin must file by May 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.