Pocock v. Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Background

Daniel Pocock, who was representing himself, brought the action against 25 corporations, unincorporated entities, and individuals. The opinion states that the defendants were located throughout the United States and several European countries. Pocock provided a Delaware address but alleged that he was a citizen of Switzerland.

The 139-page complaint asserted or referenced claims involving the First Amendment, copyright, racketeering, conspiracy, defamation, trade libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, stalking, breach of contract, and other theories. Pocock alleged that the events occurred online and suspected that they took place in several locations. He sought money damages and various declarations and injunctions.

Court’s analysis

Because Pocock had been allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint addressed more than two dozen defendants, described numerous events over several decades and in multiple countries, and included allegations that did not appear to involve Pocock. The court found that it was unclear what viable claims Pocock sought to bring against which defendants and therefore dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court separately addressed Pocock’s repeated references to the First Amendment. Constitutional claims against private parties generally cannot proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the defendants acted under color of state law, meaning they acted through state authority or as state actors. The court found that nothing in the complaint suggested that any defendant was a state actor or worked for a state or other government body. It stated that Pocock would need to allege facts showing state-actor status if he pursued constitutional claims in an amended complaint.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—insofar as Pocock may have been asserting such claims. The court also stated that amendment could not be deemed futile at that stage.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Pocock may be asserting. If Pocock does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.