Allen v. Patton

Background

Kent A. Allen, representing himself, sued Antwan Patton, Antonio Ried, and William Wang. Allen claimed that he had ideas for the Instagram platform and Google’s search engine and map software, and that he had developed or sought to profit from domain names including Postmates, Kangaroo, and Amazon. He invoked federal diversity jurisdiction and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The court noted that Allen had filed two earlier related actions raising the same claims against different defendants. The complaint in this case added William Wang, identified as Vizio’s chief executive officer, but alleged no facts about Wang or Vizio. The court also noted that Allen had filed 15 similar actions in the district since April 19, 2021, and that an earlier order had required him to explain why he should not face restrictions on filing additional cases without prepaying fees.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a legally immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must contain enough factual information to make a legally plausible claim, not merely conclusions.

The court construed Allen’s allegations about ideas for Google and Instagram as possible copyright or patent claims. It concluded that Allen did not allege that he had created software or another tangible expression of his ideas, owned a copyright, developed the technology, or received a patent. The court therefore found that the allegations did not state a copyright or patent-infringement claim.

The court construed 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 that are identical or confusingly similar to protected marks. The court found that Allen did not allege that he owned a registered trademark, that the defendants infringed a trademark he held, or that they prevented him from renewing a domain registration. It therefore found no claim for interference with his domain registration.

The court separately held that the complaint was frivolous because it had no arguable basis in law or fact. In particular, the court found baseless Allen’s claim that, as an eight- or nine-year-old child, he had the ideas for Google and Instagram. Because the court determined that amendment would be futile, it did not give Allen permission to amend the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court warned that continued vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in additional filing restrictions. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Allen permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.