Muhammad v. U.S. Government

Background

Kamal F. Muhammad appeared without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had granted that request before reviewing the complaint. Muhammad invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that he provided information to the federal government beginning in March 2020 to help address the COVID-19 pandemic. He claimed that his information led to or contributed to pandemic-related policies and programs, including stay-at-home orders, the paycheck protection program, pandemic unemployment assistance, field hospitals, vaccines, and economic recovery measures.

Muhammad alleged that he continued providing information and that it saved lives, jobs, and money. He referred to information at the United States Copyright Office under the title “COVID-19 Mitigation and Pandemic Playbook.” He also alleged physical, mental, technological, financial, and privacy-related harms. He requested at least $22 billion in damages.

Failure to State a Claim

Under the statute governing complaints filed without filing fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim for relief, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.

The court interpreted Muhammad’s allegations about having ideas for COVID-19 mitigation and recovery strategies as an attempted copyright-infringement claim. It explained that copyright law protects an original work of authorship and its expression, but not an idea, concept, or principle by itself. The court found that Muhammad did not allege that he created a tangible expression of his ideas or that he owned a copyright in such an expression. Because his allegations concerned information and ideas that he said the government used for policy and legislation, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Frivolousness

The court separately considered whether the complaint was frivolous. It stated that a claim is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The court found that Muhammad’s assertion that he should be compensated for providing information used in COVID-19 mitigation and economic-recovery measures, along with his allegations of public shaming and threats, lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. The court therefore also dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Leave to Amend and Appeal

The court explained that people representing themselves are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but that permission is not required when amendment would be futile. It declined to grant Muhammad leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

In its conclusion, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Muhammad permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.