Allen v. Patton

Background

Kent Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Antwan Patton (Big Boi) and Dara Khosrowshahi (Uber). He alleged that he had ideas for the Google search engine and map software and the Instagram platform, but was not credited or compensated. He also alleged that he developed domain names including Postmates, Kangaroo, and Amazon. Allen relied on the federal diversity-of-citizenship statute as the basis for the court’s jurisdiction and was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The opinion states that Allen had filed similar complaints in two prior related proceedings, with different defendants, and that the factual statements were identical. The current complaint added Khosrowshahi, but alleged no facts concerning Khosrowshahi or Uber.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing lawsuits filed without prepaying fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

The court interpreted Allen’s allegations about Google and Instagram as possible copyright or patent-infringement claims. It held that Allen did not allege that he created software or another tangible expression of his ideas, or that he owned a copyright. The court therefore found that he alleged only an uncopyrightable idea and failed to state a copyright claim. It also found that Allen alleged only having an idea for something like Google or Instagram, rather than developing the technology or receiving a patent, so he failed to state a patent-infringement claim.

The court interpreted Allen’s allegations about domain names as a possible claim under the federal law addressing cybersquatting, which generally concerns bad-faith registration, use, or trafficking in domain names. The court found no indication that Allen had a registered trademark, that any defendant infringed a trademark he held, or that any defendant prevented him from renewing a domain registration. It therefore found no claim against the defendants for interfering with his domain registration.

The court separately found the complaint frivolous, meaning it lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. It described Allen’s claim that, as an eight- or nine-year-old child, he had the ideas for Google and Instagram as baseless, particularly in light of his other complaints. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and did not direct Allen to amend the complaint.

Disposition and Additional Warning

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the fee-waiver screening statute and as frivolous. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Allen permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

The court noted that Allen had filed fifteen similar actions since April 19, 2021. It warned that continued frivolous or vexatious litigation could result in additional restrictions on filing lawsuits without prepaying fees, including a possible requirement that he obtain the court’s permission before filing another such action.