JONES v. LISTENVISION STUDIOS et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 02/03/2014. (lckbj2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Terrance Jones,
Plaintiff,
v.
Listen Vision LLC, et al.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0833 (KBJ)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 23, 2012, pro se plaintiff Terrance Jones (“Jones” or “Plaintiff”) filed a
two-page complaint against organizational defendant Listen Vision LLC and individual
defendants Jeremy Beaver, Kevin Carr, and a person named “Awthentik.” (ECF No. 1.)
The complaint accuses these defendants of having “engaged in endeavors of
misconduct” that appear to involve an agreement regarding the sale of sampled music.
(Amended Complaint (“Amend. Comp.”), ECF No. 31, at 1.) Jones’s accusations
apparently relate to his use of Defendants’ recording studio to record his music, and as
best the Court can tell, the gravamen of Jones’s complaint is that Defendants defrauded
him by representing that they had legal authority to license music samples from several
famous artists for Jones’s use in creating his own mix tape—which was not true—and
then selling those samples to Jones. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 4, 2013 (ECF No. 24), and
Defendant Listen Vision, LLC moved to dismiss that complaint on April 2, 2013 (ECF
No. 27). Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint on April 25, 2013, which is
now the operative complaint in the case. See Simms v. D.C. Gov’t, 646 F. Supp. 2d 36,
1

37 (D.D.C. 2009) (“The general rule is that an amended complaint supersedes and
replaces an original complaint[.]”) 1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. An order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion will issue separately.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that every complaint include “a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for
the relief sought[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 also requires that “that “[e]ach
allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss an action because of the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ciralsky v. CIA,
355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Dismissal under Rule 8 “‘is usually reserved for
those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise
unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’” Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at
670 n. 9 (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir.1995)).
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
However, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).
In addition to being exceedingly difficult to decipher, Jones’s complaint is
legally deficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint contains no plain statement
of federal jurisdiction, for example—the closest it comes to identifying this court’s
authority over this matter are a few oblique references to copyright infringement, but
1

Mr. Jones has also filed a variety of other motions not relevant here.

2

Jones does not articulate any comprehensible claim as to how Defendants have violated
any copyright law or how Jones is in a position to enforce any rights in the alleged
copyrighted work. Nor does the complaint’s conclusory mention of “fraud and
conspiracy under RICO law” (Amend. Compl. at 3)—without any facts to establish the
applicability of that statute—provide sufficient grounds for assessing the
appropriateness of federal jurisdiction here. 2 The complaint also lacks any discrete
counts or claims, much less a “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Finally, Jones has neglected to include any demand for relief in any of
the various versions of his complaint.
In sum, the complaint in this case fails to articulate a comprehensible legal or
factual basis for relief; accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is
insufficiently clear to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them, even under
the liberal “notice pleading” standards of the Federal Rules, and even under the relaxed
standard applicable to pro se plaintiffs. See Karim-Panahi v. U.S. Congress, 105 Fed.
Appx. 270, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2004). For this reason, the complaint must be DISMISSED
in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and
41(b).

Ketanji Brown Jackson

DATE: February 3, 2014

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge

2

The Rackeeter Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, appears four times in the
complaint. (See, e.g., Amend. Compl. at 3 (“The defendant’s actions are felonies under RICO by the act alone
multiplied by all who own publishing share interests in said works.”); id. (“The defendant’s actions under RICO are
violations of Title 17 regarding transferrable licensing for sales and use of works of copywrite [sic].”).) As a basis
for the invocation of the RICO statute, Plaintiff states only that “[t]he defendant’s actions and criminal intent psyche
can be symmetrically defined regarding copywrite [sic] infringement, fraud and conspiracy relevant to Title 17 and
RICO law caveats.” (Amend. Compl. ¶ 4.)

3