Shabazz v. Diggs

Background

Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He alleged criminal copyright infringement and referred to possible civil copyright and Lanham Act claims. His allegations concerned, among other things, productions, alleged forged or violated contracts, business plans, lost revenues, and alleged harm to him and family members. He sought to stop a production, obtain the return of materials, recover a trust fund and inheritance, and obtain arrest warrants for defendants and others.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the fee-free complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. It also considered whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

For the criminal copyright claims, the court held that Shabazz could not initiate an arrest or criminal prosecution in federal court. The decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and neither a private plaintiff nor the court can direct prosecutors to bring a criminal case. The court therefore dismissed the criminal copyright claims for failure to state a claim.

For the possible civil copyright claims, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege ownership of a valid copyright and infringement by the defendant. Although Shabazz attached materials that appeared to concern copyright claims for certain titles, the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that he might own a valid copyright and found that he alleged no facts showing that any defendant infringed it.

The court also addressed Shabazz’s reference to the Lanham Act, a federal trademark and unfair-competition law. The court found that he did not identify the provision involved or allege facts showing that a defendant used a protected mark in commerce without permission or that the use was likely to confuse consumers. The court dismissed the civil copyright and Lanham Act claims for failure to state a claim.

Because no federal claim was currently stated, the court declined at that time to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Shabazz might be asserting.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It granted Shabazz 30 days’ leave to replead by filing an amended complaint that details his claims and complies with the court’s requirements. If he does not timely file an amended complaint, the court stated that it will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, absent a showing of good cause. No summons would issue at that time, and the Clerk was instructed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Shabazz permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.