Allen v. Trimble
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Allen v. Trimble, Judge Swain dismissed Allen’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Kent Allen’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order ended the claims Allen asserted against Deja M. Trimble and Hartwig Masuch.
What happened
In Allen v. Trimble, Kent Allen, who represented himself, alleged that he created the idea for Twitter and helped develop Deja M. Trimble’s music career. He sued Trimble and Hartwig Masuch and requested $54 million in damages, relying on the law allowing certain cases between citizens of different states to be heard in federal court.
Because Allen was allowed to file without paying the court’s filing fee, the court reviewed the complaint for legally or factually frivolous claims. It found that his allegations had no reasonable basis in law or fact and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The court also declined to allow him to amend the complaint because it determined that amendment would be futile.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the dismissal on June 1, 2021. The court also denied Allen fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Allen v. Trimble · No. 1:21-cv-04299
- Laura Swain
- June 1, 2021
Background
Kent Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Deja M. Trimble and Hartwig Masuch. Allen invoked federal diversity jurisdiction, which can allow federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states. He alleged that he developed the idea for Twitter and was responsible for Trimble’s music career. He sought $54 million in damages.
The complaint alleged that Allen met Trimble while they were in high school, advised her about becoming a music entertainer or working in fashion, and suggested “Dej” as a stage name. He also alleged that he conceived the idea that became Twitter as a social-media platform.
Court’s analysis
Because Allen had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court defined a frivolous claim as one based on clearly baseless factual allegations, such as allegations arising from delusion or fantasy, or on a legal theory that has no arguable merit. After reviewing the complaint, the court found that Allen’s claims that he created Twitter and was responsible for Trimble’s music career were wholly implausible and had no arguable basis in law or fact. It therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend when a revised complaint might state a valid claim, the court explained that it could deny amendment when the claim is frivolous on its face or amendment would be futile. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed Allen’s complaint as frivolous. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Allen permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.