Johnson v. One Village Entertainment et al

Filing 5

ORDER Summarily Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 1:18-cv-11568
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
ONE VILLAGE ENTERTAINMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff Benjamin Anthony Johnson, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Yankton, South Dakota, has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and he is
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
After careful consideration of the complaint, the court summarily dismisses the case.
I.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was convicted in the Eastern District of Michigan in
2008 of conspiracy and narcotics offenses for which he is serving a term of 150 months. Plaintiff
claims that a documentary film titled “BMF: The Rise and Fall of a Hip Hop Drug Empire”
contained information falsely suggesting that Plaintiff cooperated with Federal authorities to
assist in what he calls the “Black Mafia Family’s Federal Investigation.” ECF No. 1 at 4.
Plaintiff claims that the information in the film has led to threats on his life and the lives of his
family members.

The complaint lists a total of twenty-two defendants in the caption. Nine of the named
defendants seem to be entities Plaintiff claims were involved in the production or distribution of
the documentary film: One Village Entertainment, Image Entertainment, Inc., RLJ
Entertainment, Inc., Joe Rock Productions, Errante Film Productions, LLC, Flow State Films,
Netflix, Amazon, and Youtube. The remaining thirteen defendants listed in the caption appear to
be individuals: Jamie Chester, Tammy Lowins, Edward Daigneau, John Errante, Derek Parker,
Andrew Rath, JDE Rock, Dave Sikorski, Don Sikorski A.K.A Donald, Irene Sikorski, Douglas
Stewart, and Ryan Walker. These defendants are not identified in the body of the complaint, but
the complaint implies that all the defendants “worked hand-in-hand in the creation” of the
documentary film. ECF No. 1 at 4. The complaint seeks $5,000,000 from each of the twenty-two
defendants for the use of his name in the film without his consent, and an additional
$850,000,000 in “special damages.” Id., at 5.
II.
Civil complaints filed by a pro se prisoner are subject to the screening requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2)
requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.
1997). A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an
arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the plaintiff
undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support if his claims that would entitle him to relief.

-2-

Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176,
179 (6th Cir. 1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).
III.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed
by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v.
Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810,
814 (6th Cir. 1996). In order for a private party’s conduct to be under color of state law, it must
be “fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982);
Street, 102 F.3d at 814. There must be “a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the
challenged action of [the defendant] so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of
the State itself.” Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Jackson v.
Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)). The complaint is devoid of allegations that any of
the named defendants were acting under color of state law when they allegedly produced and
distributed the documentary film in question. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under §
1983.
It appears that the reference to § 1983 may have been inadvertent. It is cited in the
heading to his complaint, but not discussed anywhere else. The remainder of his complaint
asserts claims for defamation and injurious falsehood. There is no independent basis for this
Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law defamation and injurious
falsehood claims, however. Although the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, it is not
apparent from the face of the complaint that the parties are completely diverse. See 28 U.S.C.
1332. Rule 8 requires the complaint to provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

-3-

court’s jurisdiction . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff has provided no statement of
jurisdiction indicating his own state of citizenship or the state(s) of citizenship of any of the
Defendants, and his complaint will therefore be dismissed. Carlock v. Williams, 182 F.3d 916
(6th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal where there was “no basis for federal jurisdiction on the face
of [Plaintiff’s] complaint.”)
IV.
The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611
(6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no
good-faith basis for an appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous and
could not be taken in good faith.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 5, 2018

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on June 5, 2018.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-4-