Menefee v. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HENLEY MENEFEE,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
VS.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0334
§
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, et at.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
I.
Background
Henley Menefee sued UMG Recordings, Inc. (incorrectly named as Universal Music Group),
Interscope Records, and Quincy Matthew Haney in state court, asserting claims for violations of
federal criminal laws. He stated in his complaint that he had "been placed on live television before
the United States of America," and that the defendants "have gained financially from products,
television shows, intellectual property, marketing, advertising, etc." (Docket Entry No.2, Ex. A at
p.2). He claimed that the citizens of the United States had viewed him on television and radio; that
criminal violations involving him had been discussed on the news, by members of Congress, and by
the President of the United States; and that new businesses, products, and companies "have come
from [Menefee]" by violating federal laws. (ld.).
The defendants removed, (Docket Entry No.1), and moved to dismiss. (Docket Entry No.
3). Menefee did not respond. The court held an initial conference on March 20, 2015. At that
conference, Menefee asked the court to allow him additional time to respond to the motion to
dismiss. The court ordered Menefee to file a response to the motion no later than March 30, 2015.
P:ICASESI201 511 5-3J41l 5-334 dismissaLa02 wpd
(Docket Entry No.9). Menefee did not respond to the motion, but instead filed an amended
complaint on March 31, 2015. (Docket Entry No.8). In the amended complaint, Menefee claims
that the defendants "have engaged in illegal activity to acquire profits" and "has had his oral
communications intercepted and used for the production of musical compositions that have gained
profits." (Docket Entry No.8, p. 2). Menefee alleges that the defendants have illegally intercepted
his communications, including "the song Studio, and other songs that have appeared on albums."
(Id.).
II.
The Motion to Dismiss
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted." FED. R. CIv. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint
'does not need detailed factual allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff s grounds for entitlement
to relief-including factual allegations that when assumed to be true 'raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.'"
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
When a plaintiff s complaint fails to state a claim, the court should generally give the plaintiff
a chance to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a) before dismissing the action with prejudice,
unless it is clear that to do so would be futile. See Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305,329 (5th Cir. 2002). However, a plaintiff should be denied leave to
amend a complaint if the court determines that "the proposed change clearly is frivolous or advances
a claim or defense that is legally insufficient on its face." 6 CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ARTHUR R.
MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1487 (2d ed. 1990); see also
Ayers v. Johnson, 247 F. App'x 534, 535 (5th Cir. 2007) ('''[AJ district court acts within its
P:ICASESI2015115-334115-334.dismissaLa02 wpd
2
discretion when dismissing a motion to amend that is frivolous or futile. '" (quoting Martin's Herend
Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading Us. ofAm. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (5th Cir. 1999))).
III.
Analysis
Menefee's allegations fail to state a claim for relief. Menefee has filed over a dozen cases
in this district alleging that he has been unlawfully placed on live television or otherwise had his
private life intercepted. Most have been dismissed.!
On March 24, 2015, Judge Lynn Hughes
issued an order barring Menefee from filing other cases in this district without receiving written
permission, stating that although "[t]he grounds for [Menefee's] claims vary, [] each complaint is
marred with unsubstantiated, unjustifiable legal conclusions." (Menefee v. Go ogle , 4: 14-cv-3429,
Docket Entry No. 14).
This suit, which contains allegations virtually identical to those other judges have found to
be frivolous, also fails to state a claim. As multiple judges have stated in their orders dismissing
Menefee's claims or denying his requests to file criminal charges, Menefee is a private citizen and
cannot pursue claims for violations of criminal laws, including the criminal statutes he relies on here,
18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 & 2520 and §§ 15.02, 16.02, and 71.02 of the Texas Penal Code. Nor may
Menefee sue a private person or company for violating the Texas Constitution's prohibition for
unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Comeaux, 818 S.W.2d 46,49 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
("The United States and Texas constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure
I See, e.g., Menefee v. Obarna, 4: 14-mc-819 (request to file criminal charges denied); Menefee v. Obarna II,
4: 14-mc-1123 (request to file criminal charges denied); Menefee v. Coca Cola, 4: 14-cv-254 7 (dismissed);
Menefee v. Disney, 4: 14-mc-981 (request to proceed IFP denied); Menefee v. Houston Police Dep 't, 4: 14-mc1711 (request to proceed IFP denied); Menefee v. Google, 4: 14-cv-3429 (dismissed); Menefee v. Nike, 4: 15mc-2022 (request to proceed IFP denied); Menefee v. Corncast; 4: 14-cv-975 (dismissed); Menefee v.
Universal, 4:15-cv-271 (remanded to state court); Menefee v. CBS, 4: 14-mc-969 (dismissed); Menefee v. ,
4: 14-cv-3715 (dismissed); Menefee v. Roc-A-Fella Records, 4: 14-cv-3494 (dismissed).
P ICASES1201 511 5-33411 5-334 dismissaLa02 wpd
3
apply only when the government conducts the search and/or seizure."); accord State v. Hardy, 963
S. W.2d 516, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Menefee cannot recover under his pleaded causes of
action. The limited facts he has alleged reveal no alternative basis for recovery.
Menefee's claims are dismissed. Given Menefee's continue failure to assert viable claims
despite amendment, and his repeated frivolous filings, dismissal is with prejudice. Final jUdgment
is separately entered. Further frivolous filings may result in money sanctions or civil contempt.
SIGNED on April 13, 2015, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
PICASESI2015115-114115-114.dismissal a02.wpd
4
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?