Henderson v. Nike Headquarters et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action with Prejudice, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/25/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUKAS ELIJAH HENDERSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. NIKE HEADQUARTERS, et al. No. 1:23-cv-01556-KES-BAM ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE Doc. 7 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lukas Elijah Henderson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this 18 civil action on November 3, 2023. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate 19 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 27, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 22 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a cognizable claim upon which 23 relief may be granted. Doc. 7. Specifically, the findings and recommendations found that 24 plaintiff had not made a plain statement of his claims as the first amended complaint “does not 25 include sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable claim,” including not alleging “facts 26 describing what happened or when it happened.” Id. at 2-3. The findings and recommendations 27 further found that while plaintiff may represent himself pro se, to the extent he is attempting to 28 assert claims on behalf of other entities, such as Luca Vision Entertainment Furniture and 1 1 Appliances etc., he may not do so. Id. at 3. Finally, the findings and recommendations found that 2 plaintiff failed to assert a claim for patent infringement, because in his first amended complaint, 3 plaintiff does not identify the relevant patent in dispute, allege that he owns a patent, or allege any 4 acts constituting purported infringement. Id. The findings and recommendations were served on 5 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 6 days after service. Id. at 4. On January 4, 2024, plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 8. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de 8 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the 9 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 10 proper analysis and that granting further leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s analysis. In his objections, 11 12 plaintiff did not meaningfully provide, or indicate that he could provide, more robust details 13 regarding what happened or when it happened such that his claim would pass muster under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Doc. 8. Moreover, plaintiff still has not alleged that he 15 owns a valid patent to support a claim for patent infringement. Construed most liberally, 16 plaintiff’s objections state that Luca Vision Entertainment Furniture and Appliances etc. owns a 17 patent, which he claims that defendants have infringed. See Doc. 8 at 1. However, this cannot 18 cure the pleading’s deficiencies, because plaintiff fails to identify sufficient details to plead a 19 claim under Rule 8. Additionally, as the findings and recommendations point out, plaintiff may 20 not represent an entity other than himself and thus may not assert a patent infringement claim on 21 behalf of Luca Vision Entertainment Furniture and Appliances etc. or any other entity. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. 3 4 The findings and recommendations issued on December 27, 2023, Doc. 7, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to comply with 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a cognizable claim upon 6 which relief may be granted; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?