`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`------------------------------x
`:
`EARL GENE GRANT,
`Plaintiff,
`
`::
`
`Civil No. 3:06CV01291(AWT)
`
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`v.
`JOHN L. STAWICKI,
`Defendant.
`------------------------------x
`
`::
`
`::
`
`ORDER OF DISMISSAL
`Plaintiff Earl Grant brings this action pro se and in forma
`pauperis. The plaintiff identifies his first claim as follows:
`“The Division of Music Copyright has release my music material
`without my permission and allowed it to be sold by persons that
`does not own them in which Marchal Mathes and Dr Dre illegaly
`wrote the music without my permission.” (Compl. at 3). In
`support of his claim, the plaintiff states the following:
`“Plaintiff sent music to be copyrighted since 1993. Upon my
`being incarcerated my music was illegaly confiscated and sold to
`various artisted in the music industry . . . These are just some
`of the artist that has used my material: Marchal Mathes/Curtis
`Jackson/Uersha/luticris/ACon/Tera Squad/Bow Wow Alicia Keys
`Conyea West Jaydicous Camron and more[.]” Id.
` Based on the plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction pursuant
`to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court concludes that the plaintiff is
`
`
`
`Case 3:06-cv-01291-AWT Document 11 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 3
`
`attempting to bring an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
`statute “creates a federal cause of action against any person
`who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen or person
`within the jurisdiction of the United States of any right,
`privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of
`the United States.” Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d
`Cir. 1999). Here, the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a
`protected civil right, nor has he alleged how the defendant acted
`under color of state law. See Rodriguez v. Phillips, 66 F.3d
`470, 473 (2d Cir. 1995). Also, the plaintiff’s complaint
`expressly states that the defendant was not acting under color of
`state law. (Compl. at 2). Moreover, the court construes the
`identity of the defendant “Division of Music Copyright,” whose
`address is listed in the complaint as “Independence Avenue
`Washington D.C.,” as the United States Copyright Office, which
`has its headquarters at 101 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
`Washington, D.C. Because the defendant is an arm of the federal
`government, no alleged conduct could have taken place under color
`of state law. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim
`under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`Because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
`relief can be granted, the court is required to dismiss his case
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(West 2007) (“[T]he
`court shall dismiss the case [brought in forma pauperis] at any
`time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to
`
`
`
`Case 3:06-cv-01291-AWT Document 11 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3
`
`state a claim on which relief may be granted.”) (emphasis added).
`This case is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to being
`reopened if a legally sufficient complaint is filed within forty-
`five (45) days. The Clerk shall close this case.
`It is so ordered.
`Dated this 9th day of March 2007 at Hartford, Connecticut.
`
`
`
` /s/AWT
`Alvin W. Thompson
`United States District Judge
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
