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

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

TYRONE BLOCKER, No. 3:14-cv-01650-HU

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING

GROUP,

Defendant.

HUBEL, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Tyrone Blocker (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pro

se against Defendant Universal Music Publishing (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff refers to the operative pleading in this case as an

“intellectual property complaint and business fraud.” (Am. Compl.

at 3.) In its entirety, Plaintiff’s sole claim alleges the

following: “[Defendant] fraudulently used my business and sold my

intellectual property. See exhibits attached.” (Am. Compl. at 3.)

The exhibits attached to the amended complaint appear to be:

(1) an August 18, 2006 letter from the Internal Revenue Service

addressed to Nest Coast LLC, in care of Tyrone Blocker, assigning

Page 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 4 Filed 12/01/14 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

an employer identification number; (2) an internet printout from

the website www.bandmind.com, referring to Nest Coast Entertainment

in Portland, Oregon; and (3) an internet printout from the website

www.ambfibi.com, listing fourteen music royalty companies located

in the United States, including Nest Coast LLC, as well as a Google

map.

LEGAL STANDARD

It settled law that a district court must perform a

preliminary screening of an in forma pauperis complaint and dismiss

any claims which: (1) fail to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; (2) are frivolous or malicious; or (3) seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that § 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to

non-prisoners).

In order to state a claim for relief, 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). When reviewing

the sufficiency of a complaint filed by a pro se litigant, the

court must liberally construe the pleading and accept as true all

of the factual allegations contained therein. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But “the tenet that a court must accept as

true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is

inapplicable to legal conclusions,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009), and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice.” Id. Rather, stating a claim requires “the plaintiff

[to] plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the

Page 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 4 Filed 12/01/14 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

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id.

Along similar lines, a district court may dismiss a claim as

factually frivolous when the facts alleged “lack[] an arguable

basis in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989), or when they “rise to the level of the irrational or the

wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable

facts available to contradict them,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

25, 33 (1992). A claim may also “be dismissed as frivolous where

a defense is obvious on the face of the complaint.” Harris v.

Rodriguez, No. 1:12–cv–00891, 2012 WL 4210118, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 18, 2012) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29

(9th Cir. 1984)).

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Plaintiff’s application (Docket No. 1) to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted solely for the purpose of screening his amended

complaint. Even when construing Plaintiff’s allegations with the

liberality required under Ninth Circuit case law, they fall well

short of stating a plausible claim for relief. Indeed, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint only contains a single conclusory statement that

“[Defendant] fraudulently used [his] business and sold [his]

intellectual property,” and Plaintiff’s exhibits fail to shed any

light on the basis for his cause of action against Defendant.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed with

Page 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 4 Filed 12/01/14 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

thirty (30) days leave to replead and cure the deficiencies

described above.

SCHEDULING ORDER

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district

judge. Objections, if any, are due December 19, 2014. If no

objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go

under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a

response is due January 5, 2015. When the response is due or

filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation

will go under advisement.

Dated this 1st day of December, 2014.

/s/ Dennis J. Hubel _________________________________ DENNIS J. HUBEL

 United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:14-cv-01650-SB Document 4 Filed 12/01/14 Page 4 of 4