BULLENS v. OPENAI L.P.
1:25-cv-01024
| S.D. Ind. | Aug 21, 2025Background
- Ronald Bullens, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against OpenAI, Sam Altman, and related entities for alleged copyright violations, breach of contract, state consumer protection violations, and spoliation of evidence.
- The court previously screened Bullens' original complaint and found it deficient, specifically citing the failure to state a claim for relief under federal law and improper pleading of jurisdiction.
- Bullens was given an opportunity to amend, but his Amended Complaint did not meaningfully alter the facts or claims; instead, it purported only to clarify jurisdiction.
- The Amended Complaint continued to cite statutes that either do not confer private rights of action (Title 18) or do not apply to private actors (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and it failed to adequately establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
- Bullens sought additional emergency injunctive relief, but this was rendered moot by the court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Jurisdiction Under Copyright Act | Bullens claims intellectual property theft justifies federal jurisdiction | Not explicitly stated, but court finds claim insufficient | Dismissed; Complaint does not state a federal claim |
| Private Right of Action Under Title 18 | Bullens asserts violations of criminal statutes support civil liability | Court notes no private right of action exists under Title 18 | Dismissed; No valid claim under Title 18 |
| Civil Rights Liability Under § 1983 | Bullens cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations | Only state actors may be liable under § 1983 | Dismissed; Defendants are private parties |
| Federal Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims | Bullens argues for supplemental or diversity jurisdiction | Not adequately pleaded; presence of Doe defendants defeats diversity | Dismissed; No jurisdiction over state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for stating a claim under the Copyright Act)
- Patel v. Heidelberger, [citation="6 F. App'x 436"] (7th Cir. 2001) (section 1983 liability requires state action)
- O'Boyle v. Real Time Resolutions, 910 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff should generally be given one chance to amend a dismissed complaint)
- King ex rel. King v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist. 189, 496 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2007) (amendment is futile if complaint cannot survive summary judgment)