Opinion
Civil Action 23-785-CFC
04-16-2024
ROBERT CHARLES LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF BEZOS, et al., Defendant.
Robert Charles Lewis, Salem, New Jersey. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Robert Charles Lewis, Salem, New Jersey. Pro Se Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CONNOLLY, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Charles Lewis appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5) The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint (D.I. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names as Defendants Jeff Bezos and various iterations of Amazon. He alleges that he has published twenty books through an Amazon company called CreateSpace, which were and are sold on Amazon.com, but that through changes in the corporate structure, his books are now sold by a company in Great Britain and he has received no royalties. He seeks ten million dollars in damages, as well as punitive damages.
IL LEGAL STANDARDS
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only when it relies on an “‘indisputably meritless legal theory' or a ‘clearly baseless' or ‘fantastic or delusional' factual scenario.'” Id.
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11.
A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
It is unclear from Plaintiffs Complaint what claims he is bringing. It is also unclear what any purported agreements and potentially amended agreements specified in terms of royalty arrangements, or whether Plaintiff has knowledge of actual sales of his books on Amazon or is merely assuming copies of his books have been sold and he has not received royalties due. For these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will be given one opportunity to file an amended complaint. If he chooses to do so, he must identify the legal claims he seeks to bring and allege specific facts in support of the elements of those claims.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.
This Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.