Medved v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Incorporated et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 2 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1 ) with prejudice. ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's: (i) Motion to Allow Electronic Fili ng By a Party Appearing without an Attorney (Doc. 5 ); (ii) Motion to Serve Summons (Doc. 6 ); and (iii) Plaintiff's "Motion to add additional points listed in this motion to original pleadings to save costs" (Doc. 7 ). FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 6/8/17. (EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Justin Sloan Medved,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00381-PHX-ESW

Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Application to Proceed

17

in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) that were filed on February 7,

18

2017. For good cause shown, the Application (Doc. 2) is granted and Plaintiff is allowed

19

to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court, however, must screen the Complaint (Doc. 1)

20

before it is allowed to be served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As the Ninth Circuit Court of

21

Appeals has explained, “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to

22

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203

23

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will dismiss

24

the Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice. 1 The Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s (i)

25

Motion to Allow Electronic Filing By a Party Appearing without an Attorney (Doc. 5);

26

(ii) Motion to Serve Summons (Doc. 6); and (iii) “Motion to add additional points listed

27
28
1

Plaintiff has consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 8).

1

in this motion to original pleadings to save costs” (Doc. 7). 2

2

Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints in this Court. Res judicata, or claim

3

preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on “any claims that were raised or could have been raised ”

4

in a prior action. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.

5

2001) (quoting W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997)).

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “any dismissal not under this rule—

7

except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule

8

19—operates as an adjudication on the merits.”

9

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) names twenty-seven Defendants, including a

10

number of film studios and professional sports organizations.

11

Defendants were also named as Defendants in the Complaint that Plaintiff filed on

12

February 12, 2016 in Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH: (i) Dreamworks Animation

13

SKG, Inc.; (ii) Arc Entertainment, LLC; (iii) Sony Pictures Releasing, Inc.; (iv)

14

Entertainment One Ltd.; (v) Kandor Graphics S.L.; (vi) Aliwood Mediterráneo

15

Producciones S.L.; (vii) Paramount Pictures Corporation; and (viii) 20th Century Fox.

The following eight

16

The Complaints filed in this action and Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH contain

17

the same nine claims for relief: (i) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights; (ii)

18

intentional infliction of emotional distress; (iii) negligent infliction of emotional distress;

19

(iv) “appropriation of name and likeness to violator’s benefit”; (v) fraud; (vi) “publicity

20

given to private life”; (vii) a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

21

Organizations Act (“RICO”); (viii) “wire & telecommunications fraud”; and (ix) slander

22

and libel. (Doc. 1 at 71-78). 3 The alleged facts underlying the claims in both cases are

23

substantially the same.

24
25
26

2

Although Plaintiff’s “Motion to add additional points listed in this motion to
original pleadings to save costs” (Doc. 7) is denied, the Court has considered the
additional allegations raised therein in determining whether this action is frivolous.

27
28

3

42.

See also the Complaint filed in Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH, Doc. 1 at 36-

-2-

1

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have engaged in an “aggressive plight to

2

racketeer plaintiff . . . .” (Doc. 1 at 13, ¶ 33). 4 Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants

3

have invaded his privacy and misappropriated his likeness and life events in various

4

movies. For example, Plaintiff asserts that the film Brokeback Mountain “was made in

5

attribution to Dreamworks Animations racketeering scheme based on many different

6

aspects in a film which spawned from the fact that plaintiff has not been to the dentist

7

since the September 11th terror attacks . . . .” (Doc. 1 at 58, ¶ 150). 5 Plaintiff also states

8

that in April 2012, he found a Labrador puppy that he named “Dory after the character

9

Dory from Finding Nemo, nearly a year later Walt Disney Pictures announced that the

10

sequel to Finding Nemo would be released in 2015 and would be titled Finding Dory.”

11

(Id. at 44-45).

12

In addition, Plaintiff, who has red hair, asserts that Defendants have intentionally

13

created works that negatively or falsely portray individuals with red hair. (See, e.g., id. at

14

19, 34). Plaintiff also alleges that certain Defendants have produced works to slander

15

21

Plaintiff or otherwise cause him harm. For instance, Plaintiff states that:
The production and release of the Dreamworks Animation
film Trolls was intended to bring negative attention and
treatment to plaintiff, who between 2012-2013 took to
youtube to lashing out at stereotypes related to plaintiff’s
deprivation from obese people, to people with brown hair, to
fans of the entertainment industry, most specifically
Dreamworks Animation. A terminology that those against
plaintiff would call Trolling which is indeed the inspiration
for the Dreamworks Animation film Trolls.

22

(Id. at 21-22).

16
17
18
19
20

23

After finding the Complaint in Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH frivolous, the

24

Court dismissed it without leave to amend. (Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH, Doc. 7).

25
4

26

5

27
28

See also the Complaint filed in Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH, Doc. 1 at 7, ¶
See also the Complaint filed in Case No. CV-16-00405-PHX-DJH, Doc. 1 at 26,

14.
¶ 77.

-3-

1

The Court finds that the Complaint (Doc. 1) in this action is barred under the principle of

2

res judicata as to (i) Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc.; (ii) Arc Entertainment, LLC; (iii)

3

Sony Pictures Releasing, Inc.; (iv) Entertainment One Ltd.; (v) Kandor Graphics S.L.;

4

(vi) Aliwood Mediterráneo Producciones S.L.; (vii) Paramount Pictures Corporation; and

5

(viii) 20th Century Fox. As to all Defendants in this case, the Court further finds that the

6

claims are based on “inarguable legal conclusion[s]” and “fanciful factual allegation[s].”

7

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Because the claims against Defendants

8

lack an arguable basis in law and fact, the Court finds that the Complaint is frivolous. Id.

9

(a complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). The

10

Court further finds that granting leave to amend would be a futile act. The Court

11

therefore will dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

12

(district court shall dismiss in forma pauperis case if the Court determines that the action

13

is frivolous or malicious)

14

Based on the foregoing,

15

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

16

without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s: (i) Motion to Allow

19

Electronic Filing By a Party Appearing without an Attorney (Doc. 5); (ii) Motion to

20

Serve Summons (Doc. 6); and (iii) Plaintiff’s “Motion to add additional points listed in

21

this motion to original pleadings to save costs” (Doc. 7).

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.

23

Dated this 8th day of June, 2017.

24
25
26
27
28

-4-