Washington v. Interscope Records

Background

Malcolm Washington brought the action against Interscope Records while proceeding without a lawyer. He invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction, alleging that he is a citizen of New York and that Interscope Records is a citizen of California. He sought $100 million in damages.

In Washington’s original complaint, he invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified his claims as “identity theft” and violations of “the privacy act.” The court previously found that complaint insufficient and gave him permission to replead. Washington then filed an amended complaint containing the sentence: “FBI investigations concluded that Interscope Records was at fault.”

Legal standard

Because Washington was permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The facts must make liability plausible, not merely possible, and must give each defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis. Courts read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, but those complaints still must meet Rule 8’s basic requirements.

Court’s analysis and ruling

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain held that the amended complaint did not tell Interscope Records what it allegedly did or failed to do, how that conduct violated Washington’s rights, or why Washington was entitled to the requested relief. The complaint therefore failed to comply with Rule 8 and did not state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court granted Washington leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The new complaint must completely replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint. The court directed Washington to provide the relevant people’s names and titles; the events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, their approximate dates and times, and their general locations; his injuries; and the relief he seeks.

The court stated that if Washington does not file a second amended complaint, or if the new complaint still does not explain what Interscope Records did or failed to do in violation of his rights, his claims against Interscope Records will be dismissed with prejudice. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to appeal without prepaying fees.