MUHAMMAD v. MOTOROLA INCORPORATED et al - Document 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Esa Muhammad a.k.a. Bandele Hinton, Plaintiff, v. Motorola, Incorporated et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff, who lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Columbia, alleges in his one-page complaint that in May 2000, he "signed a disclosure statement while completing my employment with [defendant] Motorola, Inc," in which he "stated all activity to date on my invention known as Smartech Solutions." Plaintiff further alleges that after he was laid off, Motorola "stole [his] intellectual property" "by forming [defendant] Motorola Solutions, Inc.[,] and Motorola Mobility, Inc .. " Plaintiff seeks $50 million in damages. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). A plaintiff s "[ fJactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .... " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted); see Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8,16 n. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("We have never accepted 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations' because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.") (quoting Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994». Plaintiff has not alleged that he has obtained a patent for his alleged invention. He therefore has neither stated a cognizable claim nor established his legal standing to sue. See Acme Highway Products Corp. v. Maurer, 525 F. Supp. 1130 (D.D.C. 1981) ('"The "case or controversy' requirement [under the Declaratory Judgment Act] is met in patent cases when a 'claim or charge of infringement has been made, directly or indirectly' by the person entitled to enforce the patent.") (citation omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: September J, United States District Judge 2011 2