Rowe v. Rowe

Filing 9

ORDER Granting IFP 7 . ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/15/12. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ROWE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DIRTY JOBS MIKE ROWE, as seen as
on Discovery Network,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. 11-4165-KES

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, Michael Rowe, filed a pro se complaint in which he alleges that
Mike Rowe, of the Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs television program, infringed
upon the copyright he filed to protect his name. Docket 1. At the time plaintiff
filed this lawsuit, he was incarcerated at Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield,
South Dakota. Plaintiff has since been released and resides in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota. Plaintiff moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his lawsuit
against defendant.
This court may authorize the commencement of suit without prepayment of
fees when an applicant files an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of the
lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently
impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 is committed to
the court’s discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir.
1983). “In forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute
destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). Based upon
his affidavit, Rowe’s sole income is disability payments from the Department of

Veterans’ Affairs. Thus, he has made the requisite financial showing to qualify for in
forma pauperis status.
But the inquiry does not end there. Under § 1915, the court must review the
claims in the complaint to determine if they are “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fail to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seek monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). The plaintiff
in a copyright infringement claim has the burden to prove ownership of a valid
copyright. Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 962 (8th
Cir.2005). Plaintiff has provided a document he terms a “Copyright Notice and
Self-Executing Agreement,” in which he purports to copyright his own name.
Docket 1-1. But “[c]opyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short
phrases.” United States Copyright Office, What Does Copyright Protect?, available
at http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html (accessed March 8, 2012).
Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and his
complaint is dismissed. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket 7) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Dated March 15, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
CHIEF JUDGE

2