Trapp v. Holder

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Of Summary Dismissal re 1 Complaint Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH ALLEN TRAPP,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-12235
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.

ERIC HOLDER,
Defendant,
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Joseph Allen Trapp’s pro se civil rights
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a prisoner currently
confined at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan. The
Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and now dismisses it for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege that:
(1) he or she was deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the
Federal Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the deprivation was
caused by a person acting under color of state law. Absent either element, a
section 1983 claim will not lie. Hakken v. Washtenaw County, 901 F. Supp. 1245,
1

Trapp v. Holder, U.S.D.C. 2:14-CV-12235
1249 (E.D. Mich. 1995). A pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed
liberally. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F. Supp. 391, 392 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Under
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), district courts are required to
screen all civil cases brought by prisoners. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.
3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). If a complaint fails to pass muster under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2) or § 1915A, the “district court should sua sponte dismiss the
complaint.” Id. at 612. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915(e)(2)(A), a district court must sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint before service on the defendant if satisfied that the action is frivolous or
malicious, that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant or defendants who are immune from such
relief. See McLittle v. O’Brien, 974 F. Supp. 635, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
III. COMPLAINT
Plaintiff wishes to have his name “Joseph Allen Trapp” copyrighted.
Plaintiff seeks copyright protection for his name, as well as monetary and other
relief.
IV. DISCUSSION
A person’s name or likeness is not considered a “work of authorship” within
the meaning of the Copyright Act, and is therefore not subject to copyright
protection. See Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F. 3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir.
2

Trapp v. Holder, U.S.D.C. 2:14-CV-12235
2001); See also Brown v. Ames, 201 F.3d 654, 658 (5th Cir. 2000)(“A persona
does not fall within the subject matter of copyright.”); Landham v. Lewis Galoob
Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir. 2000)(personal identity is “an inchoate
‘idea’ which is not amenable to copyright protection.”); Stanford v. Caesars
Entertainment, Inc., 430 F. Supp. 2d 749, 756 (W.D. Tenn. 2006)(a person’s
image, persona, or likeness is not copyrightable); Seifer v. PHE, Inc., 196 F.
Supp. 2d 622, 628 (S.D. Ohio 2002)(plaintiff’s name and likeness not
copyrightable). Because plaintiff is unable to obtain copyright protection for his
name, his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
V. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN
BE GRANTED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A).
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: June 19, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel
of record on June 19, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

3