United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER
AFTER SCREENING PLEADING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
Z. SINGAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Defendant Jonathan Fishman's Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Limit Further Filings (ECF No. 4) and
Defendant Amazon.com's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10).
The Court GRANTS both Motions as to dismissal and DISMISSES
all claims against Defendants Fishman and Amazon.com. The
Court further DISMISSES the Complaint as to all Defendants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), MOOTING
Plaintiff's Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal (ECF
No. 13). The Court DENIES Defendant Fishman's Motion to
the extent it seeks the imposition of filing restrictions on
Plaintiff, but warns Plaintiff that he may be subject to such
restrictions in the future.
February 2, 2017, Plaintiff Bradley Paul Williams filed a pro
se Complaint against Fishman and his fellow members of a
band, Touchpants, along with Amazon.com and its CEO, Jeff
Bezos, which Plaintiff titled, Civil Action for Damages,
Injunctive & Other Equitable Relief From Their Sale of
Prohibited Obscene Matter Depicting Child: Rape, Incest,
Sodomy, Scat, Bestiality, Mother Rape, Necro[p]hilia,
Murder, Etc.[;] Interstate Commerce in Said Materials[;] Sale
of Said Matter to Children[;] Mailing Said Materials[;]
Demand for Jury Trial [;] Negotiating Frau[d]ulent Terms of
Service (hereinafter, “Complaint”) (ECF No. 1).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Touchpants has
engaged in the creation and dissemination of obscene
material; that Amazon.com has facilitated that distribution
by selling Touchpants's album; that Plaintiff has an
interest in Defendants being prosecuted for their alleged
crimes; and that various federal statutes create a private
right of action based on damages Plaintiff sustained from
listening to Touchpants's allegedly obscene album.
See Complaint, Page ID #s 2-6. On February 3,
Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status.
Defendants Fishman and Amazon.com filed their Motions to
Dismiss on February 21 and March 22, respectively. Plaintiff
did not file any response to Defendants' Motions or
otherwise challenge their characterization of his claims.
After delays occasioned by Plaintiff's motions to
disqualify Defendant Fishman's attorney and to recuse the
Magistrate Judge, which were both denied, and a stay
requested by Plaintiff due to medical issues, the Court is
now prepared to rule on Defendants' Motions.
careful consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint, and with
full appreciation of the fact that “pro se pleading are
to be liberally construed, ” Donovan v. Maine,
276 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2002), the Court GRANTS both
Motions. As cogently explained by Defendants in their
Motions, Plaintiff's federal law claims fail because he
does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution of Defendants for alleged violations of federal
criminal statutes and the statutes Plaintiff cites do not
otherwise provide him with a private cause of action.
See Defendant Amazon.com's Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 10), Page ID #s 69-71; Diamond v. Charles,
476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d
1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). In short, Plaintiff has failed to state
any federal claim. To the extent Plaintiff has attempted to
articulate claims sounding in state law, the Court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See Rodriguez
v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir.
1995) (“As a general principle, the unfavorable
disposition of a plaintiff's federal claims at the early
stages of a suit, well before the commencement of trial, will
trigger the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental
state-law claims.”). The Court therefore GRANTS the
Motions as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims,
DISMISSES the federal claims WITH PREJUDICE, and DISMISSES
any state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
same reasons that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
against Defendants Fishman and Amazon.com, he has also failed
to state a claim against the other Defendants. Therefore,
consistent with the Court's duties under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), the statute governing in forma
pauperis pleadings, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE
the federal claims and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE any state
law claims as to all Defendants.
the Court DENIES Defendant Fishman's Motion to the extent
it seeks “an order prohibiting the filing of further
pleadings by Williams against Fishman without leave of
Court.” Defendant Fishman's Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 4), Page ID # 43. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has
been put on notice in a related case in the District of Maine
that “filing restrictions ‘may be in the
offing.'” Order on Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration, 1:16-cv-362-DBH (ECF No. 25), Page ID # 199,
quoting Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985
F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993). However, that Cok
warning was specifically in regards to pleadings in that
case. See id. For this reason, the Court DENIES
Defendant Fishman's Motion to the extent it requests
general filing restrictions. The Court instead provides
Plaintiff with notice that filing restrictions “may be
in the offing” in this matter based on the present
filing and the warning provided in the related matter, and
that the filing of groundless or inappropriate motions, or
the filing of groundless suits in this District, will result
in filing restrictions.
 The statute governing suits filed
in forma pauperis provides, “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Although several of the named Defendants have not yet been
served with process, dismissals of complaints that fail to
state a claim where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis “are often made sua sponte prior
to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective