(PS) Paschal v. Dodson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL LEE PASCHAL, No. 2:25-cv-2438 DAD AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EDWARD MITCHELL DODSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 20 The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 A. Legal Standard 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 27 complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current- 1 rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 2 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 3 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 4 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 5 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 6 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 8 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 9 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 13 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 16 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 17 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 18 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 19 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 20 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 21 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 22 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 23 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 24 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 25 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 27 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 28 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 1 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 3 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 4 to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 5 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 6 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 7 B. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s is a California resident suing another California resident for Copyright 9 Infringement and asserting four state law causes of action: misappropriation of likeness, unfair 10 competition, defamation per se, and intentional interference with prospective economic 11 advantage. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff is the “creator and owner of original TikTok video and 12 photo content through his business account.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, without 13 authorization, downloaded, copied, reposted, and distributed plaintiff’s TikTok videos and 14 photos, including works that were critical of defendant. Id. Defendant “falsely represented or 15 implied that such works were his own or used them to harass and damage Plaintiff’s reputation 16 and business.” Id. Defendant posted a TikTok video falsely stating that plaintiff “started his 17 nonprofit to get close to children.” Id. As a result, plaintiff lost goodwill, followers, and business 18 opportunities, as well as suffered emotional distress and reputational harm. Id. 19 C. Discussion 20 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be served at this time because the sole basis for federal 21 jurisdiction is the Copyright Infringement claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 133, and the complaint 22 as drafted does not state a cause of action for Copyright Infringement. Copyright law protects all 23 “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 24 “This protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses 25 of his work. Rather, the Copyright Act grants the copyright holder ‘exclusive’ rights to use and to 26 authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of the copyrighted 27 work in copies.” Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 432–33 28 (1984) (footnote omitted). 1 Importantly, even some direct copies of a copyrighted work “are not within the exclusive 2 domain of the copyright owner; some are in the public domain. Any individual may reproduce a 3 copyrighted work for a ‘fair use;’ the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such 4 a use.” Sony Corp. of Am., 464 U.S. at 433. Copying of a copyrighted work “for purposes such 5 as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), 6 scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107; see also Andy 7 Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 528 (2023). 8 The facts alleged are not entirely clear, but they strongly suggest that defendant’s use of 9 plaintiff’s original video and photo content fall under the “fair use” doctrine as criticism or 10 comment. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendant copied and re-posted works critical of 11 defendant himself. ECF No. 1 at 1. This implies that defendant was coping plaintiff’s works to 12 comment on or criticize them. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that defendant used the copied 13 images to harass plaintiff. Id. This is also indicative of comment or criticism. Based on the facts 14 stated in the complaint, it is unclear that plaintiff can claim defendant’s usage of his copyrighted 15 material constitutes copyright infringement. Plaintiff must add additional facts clarifying the 16 contours of defendant’s use of his copyrighted material for this claim to proceed. If plaintiff 17 cannot successfully allege a copyright infringement claim, there will be no basis for federal 18 jurisdiction in this case. 19 Moreover, several of plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims are inadequately pled. 20 First, to succeed on a claim for commercial misappropriation of likeness, a plaintiff must 21 establish: (1) the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff’s 22 name or likeness to defendant’s advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and 23 (4) resulting injury. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2001) 24 (internal citations omitted). The complaint does not make any allegations regarding the use of 25 plaintiff’s likeness or image. Accordingly, the complaint does not state a claim up on which 26 relief can be granted. 27 Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim likewise fails. Plaintiff writes “Unfair Competition 28 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)” in the caption of his complaint but does not explain the basis for 1 this claim or list any facts to support it. ECF No. 1 at 1. Finally, plaintiff does not identify facts 2 sufficient to support an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. 3 “Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has five elements: (1) the 4 existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains 5 the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the 6 relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual 7 disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm proximately caused by the defendant’s 8 action. Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 505, 512 (2017). 9 Plaintiff does not allege specific facts regarding this claim and does address the elements of 10 knowledge or intent. Accordingly, the complaint does not state a claim for international 11 interference with a prospective economic advantage. 12 Because the complaint contains various pleading defects, it cannot be served. However, 13 rather than recommending dismissal, the court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint 14 correcting the problems outlined above. 15 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 16 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 17 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction, in this case, the existence of a viable federal 18 claim. The complaint must contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims with adequate 19 facts to demonstrate the legal claims are actionable. The allegations of the complaint must be set 20 forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than 21 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated 22 anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” 23 where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 24 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 25 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 26 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 27 narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 28 happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 1 give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 2 contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 3 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 4 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 5 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 6 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 7 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 8 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 9 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 10 what.” Id. at 1179. 11 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading or a separate motion to 12 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Any amended complaint must be complete 13 without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an 14 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 15 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 16 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 17 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 18 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 19 alleged. 20 III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 21 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. Based on the facts alleged, it 22 does not appear that you can support a copyright claim because your facts indicate that defendant 23 copied your work to criticize or comment on it. That does not violate the copyright law. If you 24 cannot state a copyright infringement claim, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction and this case 25 needs to be brought in state court. Further, you do not allege enough facts to support most of 26 your state law claims. You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that 27 provides facts in support of specified legal causes of action. The court cannot look to your old 28 complaints or motions – all of the necessary information must be in the second amended 1 | complaint. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will 2 || recommend that the case be dismissed. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 6 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint which 7 complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this 8 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 9 | DATED: September 23, 2025 10 Chthion— Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28