Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
George J. Gleeson v. Sheryl Crow
November 1, 2011
GEORGE J. GLEESON, PLAINTIFF,
SHERYL CROW, KID ROCK, KELLY CLARKSON, AND REBA MCENTIRE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Karen K. Klein United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff George J. Gleeson ("Gleeson"), who is proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), filed a pro se complaint and an amended complaint against defendants Sheryl Crow, Kid Rock, Kelly Clarkson, and Reba McEntire. (Doc. #5, Doc. #7). Gleeson's original complaint alleged that his "personal vehicle" was "illegally entered" and "copyrighted intellectual properties of the mind were taken . . . ." (Doc. #5, p. 3). He claimed the intellectual property was plagiarized and registered in someone else's name. Id. Gleeson also stated he had a "discussion in 1982 with Harvard University entertainment professors who assured [him] of [his] value [in his] common law copyrighted work." Id.
The court reviewed the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and noted several deficiencies. Specifically, Gleeson did not state who illegally entered his vehicle or where the theft occurred, what copyrighted materials were taken and plagiarized, who registered the allegedly plagiarized materials in his or her name, or when any of these things happened. (Doc. #6). The court presumed that since Gleeson had named musicians as defendants, he was alleging the defendants infringed on lyrics and/or music copyrights he owns, but Gleeson did not state which songs were appropriated and he did not refer to any of the named defendants beyond the caption of his complaint. Id. The court allowed Gleeson an opportunity to amend his complaint subject to a warning that his complaint may be dismissed as frivolous or for failing to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Id.
Gleeson's amended complaint alleges that his "motor home" was
vandalized and property was stolen from it more than fifty times. The
intrusions into his motor home allegedly resulted in the plagiarism of
the lyrics and titles of the songs "A Moment Like This,"*fn1
"Since U Been Gone,"*fn2 "Because of
You,"*fn3 "Only God Knows Why,"*fn4
and "Picture."*fn5 Gleeson states that
the Federal Bureau of Investigations "received a copy of [the]
complaint against [the] listed defendants approx[imately] four years
ago . . . ." (Doc. #7, p. 2).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court may sua sponte review an IFP complaint and dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term frivolous "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation." Id,
Gleeson's original complaint alleged his copyrighted materials were
stolen from his "personal vehicle." He alleges in his amended
complaint that either the defendants themselves or someone at the
direction of the defendants illegally entered his "motor home" more
than fifty times and plagiarized the lyrics to the popular songs.
Gleeson's factual allegations are wholly incredible.*fn6
It is ORDERED that Gleeson's amended complaint (Doc. #7) is
DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. The court also finds that
any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in good faith, and
may not be taken in forma pauperis.
JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Buy This Entire Record For