Allen v. Almanzar

Background

Kent Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Belcalis Almanzar (identified in the caption as associated with Atlantic Recordings) and Evan Spiegel (identified in the caption as chief executive officer of Snapchat). Allen alleged that he developed the idea for Snapchat and sought compensation and credit. He relied on the federal court's jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states.

Allen alleged that he spent time with Almanzar when he was seven years old, that he helped develop artists, and that the two discussed her becoming an entertainer. He said he later came up with the name "Snapchat" based on the words "CHAT" and "snap" pictures. The complaint also discussed his memory loss, experiences with his mother, and time at college.

Failure to State a Claim

Because Allen alleged that he created the idea behind Snapchat, the court treated the complaint as seeking relief under the Copyright Act. The court explained that copyright protects original works of authorship and the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Allen did not allege that he created software or another tangible expression of his ideas, or that he owned a copyright. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Frivolousness

The court also dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the statute governing cases filed without prepaying fees. It found that Allen's claim lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. The court concluded that the complaint could not be fixed by amendment and therefore did not provide an opportunity to amend it.

Filing-Injunction Proceedings

The court stated that Allen had filed twelve lawsuits in the district since April 19, 2021, seeking to proceed without prepaying fees. The court described those lawsuits as substantially similar and said that an earlier related proceeding had warned Allen that future fee-free complaints could lead to an injunction. The court considered the factors governing a filing injunction, including Allen's litigation history, the similarity of his claims, his self-represented status, and the burden his filings placed on the court.

The court did not immediately impose the proposed filing restriction. Instead, it ordered Allen to show cause within 30 days, by declaration, why he should not be barred from filing future actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained the court's permission. The order states that if Allen does not timely submit the declaration, or if it does not show good cause, the restriction will be entered.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.