Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00248/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00248-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

28

WO KM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Pauline, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chris Loose, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-248-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff Frank Pauline, Jr., who is confined in the Corrections

Corporation of America-Saguaro Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se

Complaint (Doc. 1). In a March 4, 2010 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the

$350.00 filing fee or file an Application to Proceed to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff

filed a deficient Application to Proceed on March 15, 2010, which the Court denied with

leave to re-file. On April 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and certified account statement.

By Order filed May 4, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and

dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On July 2, 2010, after receiving an extension

of time, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). The Court will dismiss the

Amended Complaint and this action.

 I. Section 1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C.

When a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 4
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

28

1

The Harper Collins Publishers’ website states that Harper Collins is headquartered

in New York. See http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/companyprofile.aspx. Avon Books

is a publishing imprint of Harper Collins. Id.

- 2 -

malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the

Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se

litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

II. Amended Complaint

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Chris Loose, Rick Castberg, Harper Collins

Publishing, and Avon Books. Although extremely vague, Plaintiff appears to claim that

Defendants wrote and published a book based on his criminal conviction without his

authorization. Plaintiff appears to assert claims of negligence, libel, and copyright

infringement. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

III. Improper Venue

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a civil action in which jurisdiction is not based

on diversity may be brought only in:

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in

the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property

that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may

otherwise be brought.

Plaintiff does not base jurisdiction for this action in the Court’s diversity jurisdiction,

but rather states that jurisdiction for this action is based on “copyright infringement.”

Although Plaintiff’s jurisdictional basis is not clear, Plaintiff states that the events at issue

in this case occurred in Hilo, Hawaii. Moreover, it appears that the individual Defendants

reside in Hawaii. Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding the location of the corporate

Defendants, but they do not appear to reside in Arizona.1

 Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b), venue is not proper in this District. 

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 4
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

28

- 3 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the Court may dismiss or transfer any action “laying

venue in the wrong division or district.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”

The decision to transfer under section 1404(a) lies within the discretion of the district court

and is to be determined upon notions of convenience and fairness on a case-by-case basis.

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).

The Court will decline to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the

District of Hawaii because Plaintiff has not filed a viable Amended Complaint. First, the

Court notes that Plaintiff’s basis for jurisdiction is extremely vague. Although federal courts

have exclusive jurisdiction over actions that arise under federal copyright law, the fact that

an action involves a copyright issue alone does not satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements.

Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). “[A]n action

arises under the federal copyright laws if and only if the complaint is for a remedy expressly

granted by the [Copyright] Act, . . . or asserts a claim requiring construction of the Act, . . .

or, at the very least and perhaps more doubtfully, presents a case where a distinctive policy

of the Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim.” Id. In this

case, Plaintiff has not alleged that he owns a copyright over the materials in question nor is

it clear that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal copyright law–Plaintiff’s claims may be

more appropriately brought pursuant to state tort law.

Further, it appears that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The

statute of limitations for violation of federal copyright law is three years. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

The book at issue in this case was published in 2003, nearly seven years before Plaintiff filed

the present action.

Because the Court finds that transfer to another district is not appropriate, the Court

will dismiss this action for improper venue.

. . .

. . .

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 4
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

28

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) and this action are

dismissed without prejudice for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00248-GMS--MHB Document 15 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 4