Lewis v. Bezos et al, No. 1:2023cv00785 - Document 10 (D. Del. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 4/16/2024. (nmf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis v. Bezos et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT CHARLES LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No. 23-785-CFC JEFF BEZOS, et al., Defendant. Robert Charles Lewis, Salem, New Jersey. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION April 16, 2024 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com {£ 'pf L!--z) CONNOLLY, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Robert Charles Lewis appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.1. 5) The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint (D.I. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff names as Defendants JeffBezos and various iterations of Amazon. He alleges that he has published twenty books through an Amazon company called CreateSpace, which were and are sold on Amazon.com, but that through changes in the corporate structure, his books are now sold by a company in Great Britain and he has received no royalties. He seeks ten million dollars in damages, as well as punitive damages. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 126 F.3d 448,452 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informa pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only when it relies on an "'indisputably meritless legal theory' or a 'clearly baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario."' Id. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility.· See Johnson v. City ofShelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: ( 1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify 2 allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F .3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. It is unclear from Plaintiffs Complaint what claims he is bringing. It is also unclear what any purported agreements and potentially amended agreements specified in terms of royalty arrangements, or whether Plaintiff has knowledge of actual sales of his books on Amazon or is merely assuming copies of his books have been sold and he has not received royalties due. For these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will be given one opportunity to file an amended complaint. If he chooses to do so, he must identify the legal claims he seeks to bring and allege specific facts in support of the elements of those claims. 3 III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. This Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
