IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20-cv-180-AW-GRJ

EPIC GAMES,

Defendant.

_________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1, 

and has been granted leave to proceed as a pauper, ECF No. 4. Upon 

initial screening of the case pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1, the Court determined that Plaintiff should be required 

to file an Amended Complaint in order to clarify his claims. ECF No. 4. 

This case is now before the Court on ECF No. 5, Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that 

the First Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.

1When screening a Complaint under the IFP statute, the Court must dismiss any claim if 

it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 

or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Case 1:20-cv-00180-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 5
2

I. Standard of Review

“Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same 

standard as dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 

2017). To plead a cause of action, a complaint must contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Determining whether a complaint should be 

dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted turns 

on whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient plausible facts to support the

claims. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). As the 

Supreme Court held in Twombly, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.

Twombly “expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions,” and 

conclusory allegations that “amount to nothing more than a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a constitutional ... claim” are “not entitled to be 

assumed true.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681–84 (2009). To escape 

dismissal, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to move claims “across 

the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 680. “Determining whether a 

complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is a “context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 

Case 1:20-cv-00180-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 5
3

sense.” Id. at 679. In other words, “The plausibility standard is met only 

where the facts alleged enable the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Franklin v. Curry, 

738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013).

The Court will not penalize a pro se litigant for “linguistic imprecision,” 

Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008), but a cause of 

action must be discernable. A court does not have “license to ... rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an 

action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th 

Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff purports to assert antitrust claims on behalf of a game 

developer, Epic Games, against Google Inc. and Apple Inc. ECF No. 5. 

Plaintiff requests the Court to “[p]lease consider Epic Games as the Plaintiff

that I am assisting selflessly and without personal benefit to sue the 

Defendants Google and Apple.” Id. at 7. To briefly summarize Plaintiff’s 

theory, he alleges that the Defendants’ practices are monopolistic because 

they do not allow players of Epic’s “Fortnite” game to purchase items within 

the game itself, as opposed to channeling such purchases through the 

companies’ app stores. Plaintiff seeks court intervention to halt such 

Case 1:20-cv-00180-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 5
4

practices, including seizure of the companies’ revenue derived from ingame sales. See id. at 7-11. Beyond that, the nuances of Plaintiff’s claims 

are not relevant to disposition of this case because he faces an 

insurmountable hurdle: Plaintiff is not an attorney and cannot represent 

another party’s interests in this Court.

28 U.S.C. § 1654 authorizes parties in federal cases to “plead and 

conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The 

right to appear pro se, however, is limited to those parties conducting “their 

own cases” and does not apply to persons representing the interests of 

others. Franklin v. Garden State Life Ins., 462 Fed. Appx. 928, 930, 2012 

WL 953099 **2, (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) 2 (citing Devine v. Indian 

River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir.1997), overruled in part 

on other grounds, Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516

(2007)). 

Because Plaintiff, as a non-lawyer, is not permitted to proceed pro se

in this case on behalf of Epic Games, he “can prove no set of facts entitling 

[him] to relief,” and therefore dismissal is proper. Franklin v. Garden State 

Life Ins., 462 Fed. Appx. at 930, 2012 WL 953099 **2.

2 Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 36-2, unpublished opinions are not considered binding 

precedent but may be cited as persuasive authority.

Case 1:20-cv-00180-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/03/20 Page 4 of 5
5

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the First 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of September 2020.

s/Gary R. Jones GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations 

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy 

thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic 

docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A 

copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. If a party 

fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and 

recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal 

the district court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 1:20-cv-00180-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/03/20 Page 5 of 5