1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`RONALD EUGENE JAMES,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`MATTEL, et al.,
`Defendants.
`No. 2:24-cv-1954 DAD AC PC
`
`ORDER and
`FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS
`
` Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief for an alleged copyright violation
`and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This
`proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For
`the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed without
`leave to amend.
`I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
` Plaintiff has submitted a d eclaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1915(a). ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
` Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in
`accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct
`the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and
`forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 2
`
`
`of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account.
`These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time
`the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1915(b)(2).
`II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
`The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
`governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
`court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
`“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]
`monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
` A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
`Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
`Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal
`theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,
`640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as
`stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a
`constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
`Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).
`“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
`what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
`“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context
`of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman,
`680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure
`to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
`cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the
`speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 3
`
`
`something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally
`cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
`R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)).
`“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
`relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
`content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this
`standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg.
`Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading in the
`light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
`McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).
`III. Complaint
`Plaintiff sues for Copyright Infringement, alleging that defendants infringed on the
`plaintiff’s copyrighted illustrated characters in his children’s book series called “The Simplys,”
`which uses the catchphrase “We are Simply Who We Are.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff wrote “The
`Simplys” and created a copyright notice on November 11, 2017. Id. at 3. Plaintiff first used “The
`Simplys” in commerce on October 15, 2019. Id. The motto of “The Simplys” is “Our normal is
`not your normal, but we’re still normal kids.” Id. at 4. The Simplys are a unique set of characters
`with visible disabilities. Id. For example, “Brooklyn” has vitiligo and is visually impaired;
`“Sassy” has a peg leg; “Kimiko” was hit by a drunk driver and uses a wheelchair; and so forth.
`Id. Plaintiff wrote sixteen books in “The Simplys” series. Id. at 5.
`Defendant Mattel has a new line of dolls with different physical impairments, including a
`doll with vitiligo, a doll with a peg leg, and a doll in a wheelchair, and plaintiff alleges that these
`dolls are based on the illustrations in The Simplys books. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff did not give Mattel
`permission to turn his characters into dolls. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Stacey Rene
`James (Carson), his ex-wife, conspired with her cousin defendant Rhonda Valdry, to use and
`profit from plaintiff’s copyright by making a deal with Mattel, for which plaintiff has not received
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 4
`
`
`any profit. Id. at 8. Defendant Carl Tenbrink is alleged to have willfully infringed on plaintiff’s
`copyright by producing and manufacturing dolls substantially similar to The Simplys characters.
`Id. at 9. Plaintiff was able to confirm the unauthorized production of the dolls in 2023 by viewing
`a segment on Good Morning America with Robin Roberts, and he was told his character
`illustrations were being sold in stores around April of 2020, though he cannot confirm or deny
`that due to his incarceration; he notified Tenbrink of the infringement, but Tenbrink did not
`respond. Id. at 9. Plaintiff has been unable to negotiate a reasonable license for creating dolls
`based on his illustrations. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges defendant Sonos Product Development
`infringed on his copyrights by using his images for commercial use in furtherance of its doll
`business. Id.
`IV. Failure to State a Claim
`Plaintiff’s sole cause of action is for Copyright Infringement under federal law and state
`common law. ECF No. 1 at 1. As a preliminary matter, the court notes that there is no state
`copyright law, and any common law claims are preempted by federal copyright law. Best Carpet
`Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 90 F.4th 962, 974 (9th Cir. 2024). In order for a plaintiff to state a
`federal Copyright Infringement claim, “(1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed
`material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive
`right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106. See 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).” A&M Recs.,
`Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001).
`Copyright protection ‘subsists ... in original works of authorship
`fixed in any tangible medium of expression.’ 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`This protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete
`control over all possible uses of his work. Rather, the Copyright Act
`grants the copyright holder “exclusive” rights to use and to authorize
`the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of
`the copyrighted work in copies. Id., § 106.14.
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 432–33 (1984). The
`Copyright Act expressly states that “[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of
`authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
`principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or
`embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 5
`
`
`Here, even if the court were to assume that plaintiff’s copyright is valid and that the facts
`he alleges are true, his claim necessarily fails because the use he alleges is expressly excluded
`from copyright protection. Plaintiff is not challenging the direct reproduction of his books;
`instead, he asserts that his concept – representing children with specific physical disabilities
`and/or visible differences – was stolen by defendants, who sold dolls with those same physical
`characteristics. This type of allegation, that a concept or principle was taken from a work and
`used in another form, is expressly not subject to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`Further, the fact that plaintiff created and/or owned illustrations of characters with physical traits
`shared by many people (vitiligo, wheelchair use, limb differences, etc.) and Mattel also created
`dolls with these physical traits, plainly does not give rise to an inference that Mattel utilized
`plaintiff’s intellectual property in any way in creating its dolls. These physical traits are
`represented in the general community and are present in many illustrations, dolls, photographs,
`and advertisements. The facts alleged by plaintiff are, on their face, insufficient to state a claim
`for copyright infringement. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.
`V. Leave to Amend Should Not be Granted
`If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court
`has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130
`(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects
`in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31; Cato v.
`United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to
`amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that
`the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809
`F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).
`However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by
`amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06. Plaintiff's
`allegations do not state viable claims for relief and, given the nature of the claims, leave to amend
`would be futile and it will therefore be recommended that the complaint be dismissed without
`leave to amend. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013)
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
` 6
`
`
`(“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” (citation
`omitted)).
`VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant
`Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the
`entire filing fee immediately. However, the facts of your case make it clear that you do not have
`a claim for a copyright violation. There is no copyright protection for ideas or concepts. Because
`of this, it is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. You
`may object to this recommendation within 21 days. The District Judge will make the final
`decision.
`V. Order and Recommendation
` In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
` 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
` 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutor y filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff
`is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the
`Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently
`herewith.
`IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed
`without leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
`These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
`assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
`after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
`with the court. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
`waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
`1991).
`DATED: September 22, 2025
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-01954-DAD-AC Document 9 Filed 09/23/25 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`