Justin v. Taylor

Background

Malik M. Justin, proceeding without a lawyer, applied to proceed without paying court 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.

Justin’s complaint asserted one claim for patent infringement under 25 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 did not identify the patent, provide factual allegations describing the alleged infringement, or state what relief he wanted. He also cited “USC 2261A,” apparently referring to 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, a criminal stalking statute. The court explained that criminal statutes generally are enforced by the federal government, not by private civil plaintiffs, and that case law does not recognize a private civil claim under § 2261A.

Court’s analysis

The court ordered Justin to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take the proposed adverse action—on two issues. First, it found his application to proceed without paying fees incomplete and lacking enough information to determine whether his answers were credible. The court ordered him to answer every question on the application and, if he truly had no assets or income, explain how he met his basic needs.

Second, the court explained that a self-represented complaint must include facts supporting a plausible legal claim, not merely legal conclusions or a statement of the type of claim asserted. The court found that Justin’s patent-infringement allegation contained no supporting facts. If he wished to continue, he had to file an amended complaint identifying the facts supporting his claim, including what patent he owned and what Taylor allegedly did to infringe it. The court also noted that an amended complaint would replace the current complaint and would need to include all claims and facts he wanted to pursue.

Disposition

The court issued an amended order to show cause. It required Justin to file, by May 28, 2025, both a response addressing the missing financial-application information and either an amended complaint stating facts supporting his claim or a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient.

The order did not itself deny the application to proceed without paying fees or dismiss the complaint. It stated that, if Justin failed to correct the defects, the undersigned magistrate judge would recommend denial of the application or dismissal of the complaint. If Justin did not respond at all, the magistrate judge could recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute. The amended order corrected and superseded an earlier order issued the same day that had stated the fee application was granted.