..
`
`Case 1:15-cv-06714-ENV-LB Document 5 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 108
`FILED
`IN CLERK'S OFFICE
`US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y
`
`* MAR 1 7 2015 *
`
`BROOKLYN OFFICE
`
`MEMORANDUM & ORDER
`
`15-CV-6714 (ENV)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`--------------------------------------------------------------- x
`ROMANUS CASTRO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`JOHN CUSACK; THE WILLIAM MORRIS
`AGENCY; DANNY STRONG; LEE DANIELS;
`HANK AZARIA; BOB LOWRY; IMAGINE
`TELEVISION; 20rn CENTURY FOX TELEVISION:
`ENTERTAINMENT GROUP AND
`SUBSIDIARIES; LITTLE CHICKEN
`PRODUCTIONS; SONY PICTURES TELEVISION;:
`50 CANNON ENTERTAINMENT; BOB LOWRY
`:
`TELEVISON; LEE DANIELS ENTERTAINMENT; :
`DANNY STRONG PRODUCTIONS; MATTHEW
`CARNAHAN CIRCUS PRODUCTIONS;
`TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION; ABC STUDIOS,
`DOES 1-20,
`
`Defendants.
`--------------------------------------------------------------
`
`x
`
`VITALIANO, D.J.,
`
`Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging copyright infringement. The
`
`Court grants plaintiffs request to proceed informa pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
`
`solely for the purpose of this order, and grants plaintiff 30 days to amend the complaint, as
`
`detailed below, in order to comply with the applicable rules.
`
`Background 1
`
`Castro claims that, in 2003, he wrote a screenplay entitled the "Summit of Beauty and
`
`Love." The screenplay contained a role for the actor John Cusack, prompting him to forward his
`
`1 All facts are drawn from the complaint and are deemed true solely for purposes of this order.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-06714-ENV-LB Document 5 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 109
`
`work to Cusack's agent at the William Morris Agency. On August 3, 2006, Castro filed an
`
`action which alleged that the television series Huff, playing on the Showtime cable network, had
`
`striking similarities to his screenplay and had, over the course of the series, utilized the entirety
`
`of his screenplay. See Castro v. Azaria, 06-CV-3853 (ENV) (dismissed for failure to state a
`
`claim on March 19, 2007). In the instant complaint, Castro alleges that this same screenplay was
`
`used for DIRT!, a show that premiered on the FX network on January 2, 2007 and now has also
`
`been used for a new series, Empire, which premiered on the FOX network on January 7, 2015.
`
`Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an injunction against the "future airing of Empire episodes
`
`until proper credit may be affixed." Compl. at 27-29.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss an informa pauperis
`
`action where it is satisfied that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
`
`on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
`
`from such relief." An action is "frivolous" when either: (1) "the factual contentions are clearly
`
`baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy"; or (2) "the claim is
`
`based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
`
`F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nance v. Kelly, 912
`
`F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam)).
`
`At the same time, courts must read pro se complaints with "special solicitude" and
`
`interpret them to raise the "strongest arguments that they suggest," Triestman v. Federal Bureau
`
`of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation and emphasis omitted). Nonetheless,
`
`a complaint must still plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
`
`Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007);
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-06714-ENV-LB Document 5 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 110
`
`.....
`
`Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). While
`
`"detailed factual allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions'
`
`or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' will not do." Id. (quoting
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a complaint is insufficient to state a claim "if it tenders
`
`'naked assertion[s]' devoid of'further factual enhancement."' Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`
`557).
`
`Discussion
`
`"In order to make out a claim of copyright infringement ... a plaintiff must establish three
`
`things: 1) that his work is protected by a valid copyright, 2) that the defendant copied his work,
`
`and 3) that the copying was wrongful." Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95, 100
`
`(2d Cir. 2014). Moreover, the pleading must satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, which requires that the
`
`complaint provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against them. "[A] plaintiff suing for
`
`copyright infringement may not rest on bare-bones allegations that infringement occurred."
`
`Sharp v. Patterson, No. 03-CV-8772 (GEL), 2004 WL 2480426, at *12-13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3,
`
`2004). Rule 8, in other words, demands that a plaintiff claiming a copyright infringement allege:
`
`(i) which specific original work is the subject of the claim, (ii) that plaintiff owns the copyright
`
`in the work, (iii) that the copyright has been properly registered in accordance with the statute,
`
`and (iv) by what acts, during what time, the defendant infringed on the copyright. Transcience
`
`Corp. v. Big Time Toys, LLC, 50 F. Supp. 3d 441, 448-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
`
`As currently stated, even interpreting Castro's pleadings as raising the strongest argument
`
`they suggest, he has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted under the Copyright
`
`Act. In an abundance of caution, however, and in deference to plaintiffs pro se status, the Court
`
`grants him 30 days to amend his complaint. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-06714-ENV-LB Document 5 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 111
`
`2000) (holding that pro se plaintiff should be afforded opportunity to amend "unless the court
`
`can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would
`
`succeed in stating a claim.") (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d
`
`Cir. 1999)).
`
`Should Castro file an amended complaint, he must set forth the elements of a copyright
`
`infringement claim. Specifically, he must truthfully state that he has a valid copyright for his
`
`screenplay and that the copyright is registered in accordance with the copyright statute. If
`
`available, Castro should include a copy of his copyright registration. If not, Castro must
`
`plausibly allege facts upon which he has a valid copyright, though not registered under the
`
`copyright statute. In any event, he must provide facts against each defendant named in the
`
`amended complaint. Finally, the amended complaint must be captioned as an "Amended
`
`Complaint" and bear the same docket number as this order.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Castro's complaint is dismissed with 30 days' leave from the date this order is entered on
`
`the docket to amend his pleading to state sufficient facts to allege a violation of the Copyright
`
`Act. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings are stayed until further
`
`order of this Court. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, Castro's
`
`complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
`
`would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of
`
`an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-06714-ENV-LB Document 5 Filed 03/17/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 112
`
`So Ordered.
`
`Dated: Brooklyn, New York
`March 17, 2016
`
`ERIC N. Vlf ALIANO
`United States District Judge
`
`5
`
`/S/ Judge Eric N. Vitaliano