Bledsoe v. Granberry

Background

Donnell Bledsoe filed this action against Shawn Granberry, Thomas D. McElroy, and Jay Williams. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California before the court ruled on Bledsoe’s application to proceed without paying filing fees or screened his second amended complaint. Bledsoe was proceeding without a lawyer.

Bledsoe alleged that he began creating a copyrighted work in 2010, apparently a documentary published through Music Don Juan Bledsoe Music Entertainment. He alleged that Granberry and McElroy later launched Hip Hop T.V., that they had access to material he posted on Facebook, and that all three defendants stole and copied his style in the music-video entertainment field. His second amended complaint asserted breach of contract, copyright infringement, and statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. He attached a flash drive containing his documentary and two copyright registrations.

Screening Standard

Because Bledsoe was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal before service if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims and the facts supporting them.

The court stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally but could not add facts that were not alleged. Self-represented litigants must still follow the federal and local rules.

Analysis

For breach of contract, the complaint needed facts plausibly showing a contract, Bledsoe’s performance or an excuse for nonperformance, the defendants’ breach, and resulting damages. The court found that the second amended complaint did not identify any agreement between Bledsoe and the defendants or explain what conduct breached an agreement.

For copyright infringement, the complaint needed facts showing ownership of a valid copyright and copying plus unlawful appropriation. The court found that Bledsoe adequately alleged ownership of a valid copyright, although the titles of the registered works did not clearly show which one corresponded to his documentary. But the complaint did not identify or describe a particular work published by the defendants. Its statements that the defendants’ work was similar to Bledsoe’s and that they copied his style were conclusory and did not explain specifically how, or to what extent, the works were similar.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court granted Bledsoe’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that the second amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 and gave Bledsoe leave to file a third amended complaint by July 28, 2021. The court instructed him to use separate numbered paragraphs for factual allegations and claims, identify the facts supporting each claim, and include all defendants, claims, and supporting facts because an amended complaint must be complete by itself. The order stated that failure to follow the rules or the court’s instructions could result in a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. Judge Jayqueline Scott Corley’s order disposed of docket entry 3, the fee application.