Taylor v. Royal Ahold NV
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 5/2/2016. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JACQUELINE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-248
V.
AHOLD, USA/MARTIN'S
FOOD & PHARMACY,
Defendant.
OPINION
The plaintiff, Jacqueline Taylor, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
complaint against Ahold, USA/Maitin's Food & Pharmacy ("Martin's"). She alleges a number
of violations all arising out of Martin's alleged failure to honor its agreement with her to jointly
host a bike race. She alleges that Martin's took her ideas for the race and then planned and held
the bike race without her. The Court finds that Taylor is unable to pay the costs of proceeding in
the instant case. Accordingly, the Court grants Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court, however, dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which the Court may grant relief.
1. BACKGROUND
Taylor approached Martin's staff to propose that they work together to coordinate a
charity bike race to support her charity, St. Francis' Children Services and Care-A-Van
programs. She alleges that Martin's initially responded positively to the idea. She described her
plan to Martin's and identified potential sponsors who might be interested in promoting the race.
She later learned that Martin's had planned and held a bike race without her. She alleges that it
used her "copyrighted" plan and supports that contention by pointing out that Martin's used
many of the same sponsors that she had identified for its race.
Taylor's complaint has four counts: Count I - violation of federal criminal law for
trafficking in counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging and
criminal infringement of a copyright under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2318-2319; Count II - criminal
infringement of a copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 506; Count III —
violation of Article 1 Section 8 of
the United States Constitution; and Count IV - breach of defendant's published code of ethics.
II. DISCUSSION
In proceedings in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss the case at any time if the court
finds that the action fails to state a claim upon which the Court may grant relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 2006).
When interpreting a pro se complaint, the Court must afford the complaint a liberal
construction. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 413 n.3 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court, however,
need not attempt "to discern the unexpressed intent of the plaintiff." Id. The Fourth Circuit has
stated: "[T]hough [pro se] litigants cannot, of course, be expected to frame legal issues with the
clarity and precision ideally evident in the work of those trained in law, neither can district courts
be required to conjure up and decide issues never fairly presented to them." Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1985).
Count I fails to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2318 because Taylor has not alleged that
Martin's actions constitute trafficking.
Section 2318, a federal criminal law, has a civil suit
provision and states that "any copyright owner who is injured, or is threatened with injury, by a
violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court."
18 U.S.C. § 2318. Under subsecfion (a), a defendant must traffic in counterfeit labels or other
copyright infringing items to violate the statute. Id. The statute refers to § 2320 to define traffic.
That section defines traffic as "means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another,
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or to make, import, export,
obtain control of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of." 18
U.S.C. § 2320.
The plaintiff has failed to allege how the defendant's actions constitute
trafficking. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 2318.
Count I fails to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2319 because § 2319, a federal criminal
statute, does not have a civil suit provision. Consequently, only the United States can bring a
suit under this statute, so the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 2319.
Count II alleges a violation under 17 U.S.C. § 506, a criminal law that punishes
infringement under § 2319 that "was committed—(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain" 17 U.S.C. § 506. Again, § 506 is a federal criminal law that does not have
a private right of action. Consequently, only the United States can bring a suit under this statute,
so the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 506.
Count III fails to state a claim because private individuals cannot sue private parties
under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8 addresses the
powers of Congress. See U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 1 ("The Congress shall have Power To ...").
Nothing in its language indicates that it regulates the conduct of private parties. Consequently,
the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which the Court may grant reUef.
Finally, Count IV fails to state a claim, because neither Virginia law nor federal law has a
standalone provision to sue a private party for a violation of its own code of ethics. The plaintiff,
therefore, has not stated a claim upon which the Court may grant relief
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which the Court
may grant relief Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court will enter an appropriate order.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Opinion to the pro se plaintiff.
.
Date: May 2. 2016
Richmond, VA
John A. Gibney, Jr. / /
United States District Judge
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?