Allen v. Patton

Background

Kent A. Allen, appearing without a lawyer, sued Antwan Patton (Big Boi), Antonio Ried (Hitco Entertainment), and Sundar Pichai (Google). He alleged that he had ideas for the Instagram platform, Google’s search engine, and Google’s map software, but was not credited or compensated. He also alleged that he developed domain names including Postmates, Kangaroo, and Amazon. He invoked the federal diversity statute as the basis for jurisdiction and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The court noted that Allen had raised the same claims in two prior related proceedings involving different defendants. The complaint in this case used the same factual statement and added Pichai, but alleged no facts about Pichai. The court therefore considered the prior related proceedings when evaluating this complaint.

Court’s Analysis

Because Allen was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss the case if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret filings by people without lawyers generously, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

The court interpreted the allegations about the ideas for Instagram and Google as possible copyright or patent claims. It concluded that Allen did not allege that he created software or another tangible expression of those ideas, held a copyright, actually developed the technology, or received a patent. The court therefore dismissed the copyright and patent claims for failure to state a claim.

The court interpreted the domain-name allegations as a possible claim under the federal law addressing cybersquatting, which concerns registering, trafficking in, or using domain names in bad faith. It concluded that the complaint did not indicate that Allen owned a registered trademark, that any defendant infringed a trademark he held, or that any defendant interfered with his ability to renew a domain registration. The court therefore dismissed the domain-related claim for failure to state a claim.

The court also dismissed the complaint as frivolous. It found that the action had no arguable legal or factual basis and specifically described Allen’s allegation that, as an eight- or nine-year-old child, he had the ideas for Google and Instagram as baseless. The court decided that amendment would be futile, so it did not direct Allen to file an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed Allen’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal filing-fee statute and as frivolous. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court warned that continued frivolous or abusive litigation could result in additional restrictions on Allen’s ability to file future actions without prepaying fees. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.