Canders v. Forbes

Background

Tijuana L. Canders, who was representing herself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, sued David C. Forbes, Tracey Forbes, and Raima Forbes. She alleged that the defendants infringed her copyright in We See Differently and her registered trademark, You Are Loved in Christ. The complaint alleged infringement occurring in New York, Connecticut, Ohio, and electronically, but it did not give concrete examples of what the defendants allegedly did. Canders sought money damages, including a stated demand of $46 billion unless a lower amount was arranged.

The court noted that Canders had filed a substantially similar complaint in an earlier round of this case involving the same copyright and trademark. That earlier action had been dismissed, and Canders had been given 30 days to amend. The court also noted that she had filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from that earlier order and that the appeal was pending.

Court’s Analysis

Because Canders was proceeding without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to decide them.

The court dismissed Canders’s claims seeking the defendants’ criminal prosecution for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that a private plaintiff does not have standing—the legal ability to ask a court for relief—to cause the criminal prosecution of other people.

The court separately dismissed the copyright and trademark-infringement claims for failure to state a claim. Although the complaint attached registration documents for the work and trademark, the court found that the allegation about “excel files for illegal emails, publishing, and website Platforms for business” did not plausibly show that the defendants had infringed Canders’s protected work or trademark. The court therefore found that the complaint did not meet the requirement to provide enough factual detail to support a plausible claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims seeking criminal prosecution for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also dismissed the copyright and trademark-infringement claims for failure to state a claim. The court granted Canders 30 days to amend because it appeared that the defects might be corrected. The order stated that judgment would be entered if she did not timely amend, could not show good cause for failing to do so, or filed an interlocutory appeal in response to this order.

The court warned that future duplicate actions concerning the copyright or trademark, without supporting facts, could lead to an order requiring Canders to explain why she should not be barred from filing future actions without paying fees and without permission from the court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.