Chavez v. Khalil
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-09158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chavez v. Khalil, Judge Swain dismissed Chavez’s amended complaint as frivolous and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Juan Pablo Chavez’s amended complaint was dismissed. The defendants were Jacob Khalil, Facebook, and Instagram. Chavez was also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Chavez v. Khalil, Juan Pablo Chavez, representing himself, filed an amended complaint against Jacob Khalil, Facebook, and Instagram. The court reviewed the amended complaint after previously giving Chavez an opportunity to correct problems in his original complaint.
Chavez invoked the Trademark Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Thirteenth Amendment, and federal civil-rights statutes. He alleged, among other things, that a defendant interrupted his street performance and that defendants used his music without authorization.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the claims were irrational and had no valid legal theory. She dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous, declined to allow another amendment, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. Khalil · No. 1:21-cv-09158
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Juan Pablo Chavez proceeded without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He sued Jacob Khalil, Facebook, and Instagram. The court had previously directed Chavez to amend his original complaint to address deficiencies. Chavez filed an amended complaint, which the court reviewed.
Claims and allegations
Chavez alleged that a defendant put cash into the hands of another street performer, who interrupted Chavez during a performance. He invoked the Trademark Act and alleged false designation of origin and unfair competition involving music, videos, webpages, and YouTube. He also invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Thirteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. The opinion recounts allegations of unauthorized copying and sampling of an unpublished track, mental suffering, and a two-week involuntary civil commitment.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s filings liberally, but it concluded that Chavez’s claims were irrational and lacked any legal theory that could support relief. Because Chavez had already been given an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment, the court declined to grant further leave to amend.
Disposition
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court also certified under § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Chavez permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Chavez and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.