Shabazz v. Graham

Background

Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz, representing himself, sued Aubrey Drake Graham, Lucianne Grainge, and Universal Music Group. He asserted claims for criminal copyright infringement and appeared also to seek relief for civil copyright infringement. Shabazz alleged that he and Covenant Music Inc. had participated in projects connected to Universal Music Group and that Drake’s album and career were derived from works associated with Wu-Tang and Shabazz’s other acts. He also alleged that he had not received payment for those works.

The court had previously allowed Shabazz to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally, but explained that his complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the criminal copyright claims for failure to state a claim. It held that a private plaintiff cannot initiate a criminal prosecution in federal court or direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges against another person.

The court also dismissed the civil copyright claims for failure to state a claim. A civil copyright claim generally requires allegations that the plaintiff owns a valid copyright and that the defendant infringed it. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Shabazz owned a valid copyright, but found that his allegations did not sufficiently show that the defendants infringed or otherwise violated that copyright.

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

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepayment of fees. The court granted Shabazz 30 days’ leave to replead facts supporting a civil copyright-infringement claim in an amended complaint. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It instructed the Clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.

Warning

The court discussed Shabazz’s prior litigation history and warned that filing duplicative or meritless complaints while proceeding without prepayment of fees could lead to an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new actions without prepayment of fees unless he first obtained permission.