Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02204/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

15CV2204 BEN (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL F. KRONE, 

K-21000

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN 

CORPORATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 15CV2204 BEN (DHB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP

(2) DENYING REMAING MOTIONS 

AS MOOT

[Docket Nos. 1-5]

Plaintiff Daniel F Krone, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint 

alleging copyright and patent infringement against Lockheed Martin. Plaintiff has also 

filed a Motion to Proceed IFP (Docket No. 2), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 

3), Motion for Service (Docket No. 4), and Motion for a Protective Order (Docket No. 5). 

Although challenging to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff is alleging that he designed the 

Air Force’s F-117 Nighthawk.1 

///

 

1 Unless otherwise noted, the allegations noted are drawn from the allegations of the Complaint. The 

Court is not making any findings of fact or in any way endorsing the accuracy of the allegations. 

Case 3:15-cv-02204-BEN-DHB Document 7 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

15CV2204 BEN (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 

appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 

merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). A 

complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Sua sponte dismissal is proper where the allegations 

are “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional,” or they “rise to the level of the irrational or the 

wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).

Plaintiff alleges that in 1982, at the age of 16,2 he designed the F-117 and passed 

on a draft of the design to a friend. Then, in 1995, while incarcerated in the San Diego 

County Jail, Plaintiff saw a TV story about the United States Air Force’s declassification 

of the F-117. He was allegedly surprised to see his design flying. Plaintiff elected not to 

contact Lockheed Martin at the time. Sixteen years later, in 2011, Plaintiff allegedly 

attempted to contact Lockheed Martin. This action followed four years later. Plaintiff 

asserts that he is the unregistered initial author, drafter, and creator of the F-117 aircraft 

and owner of the copyright to it. The Court finds these allegations fanciful and wholly 

incredible. Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint frivolous and denies Plaintiff’s 

request to proceed IFP. 

Alternatively, even if these allegations were not frivolous, dismissal with prejudice 

or denial of leave to proceed IFP would still be appropriate because amendment would be 

futile. Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding “denial of leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis is abuse of discretion unless the district court first provides 

a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds amendment would be futile.”). Plaintiff 

alleges he was aware to the alleged infringement 16 years before he filed this action, but 

elected not to do anything. Assuming he did design the F-117 in 1982 at the age of 16, 

 

2 California Department of Corrections records reflect that Plaintiff is 50 years of age at this time. 

Case 3:15-cv-02204-BEN-DHB Document 7 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

15CV2204 BEN (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

any claim he might have had would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

Because the Complaint is frivolous, the Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s other motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02204-BEN-DHB Document 7 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 3