Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05736/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05736-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Library of Congress Copyright Office
Defendant
Lonnell B. Worthy
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNELL B WORTHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COPYRIGHT

OFFICE,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05736 CRB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Lonnell Worthy filed a complaint in state court against the Library of

Congress Copyright Office. The Copyright Office removed to federal court and now moves

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state claim upon which

relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); id. 12(b)(6). 

Although Worthy’s complaint includes a prayer for relief in the form of “copyright

property,” it does not set forth any underlying facts supporting his claim or identify particular

causes of action. Worthy filed a Civil Case Cover Sheet form, on which he described the

case as involving employment-related issues that concern “checks.”

The Copyright Office argues that the case must be dismissed pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1) because Worthy has not alleged any waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow

him to sue a federal defendant. See Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th

Cir. 2003) (“The United States can be sued only to the extent that it waives its sovereign

immunity from suit.”). In addition, the Copyright Office moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule

Case 3:07-cv-05736-CRB Document 13 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

12(b)(6) because Worthy has not alleged any facts that would support a cause of action. See

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that dismissal is proper where

there is “an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory”). 

At this point, the Court cannot determine whether the government has waived its

immunity from suit because it is unclear what the relevant facts are and what the plaintiff is

alleging. Therefore, the Court cannot yet rule on the government’s motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(1). Nonetheless, the Court agrees with the government that Worthy’s complaint,

as currently pled, fails to set forth sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff can cure

the pleading defect by amending his complaint to set forth “a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,” “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for judgment for the relief

the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The amended complaint should sufficiently

describe the factual circumstances that form the basis of the plaintiff’s suit and should be

filed no later than January 25, 2008.

The plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The hearing

scheduled for January 4, 2008 is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05736-CRB Document 13 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2