Fullybright v. Amazon.com Inc
2:25-cv-01458
W.D. Wash.Sep 8, 2025Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rudolf Fullybright filed suit against Amazon.com Inc. and others and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status; the magistrate judge granted IFP but recommended §1915(e)(2)(B) review before summons issuance.
- Fullybright alleges he published two books and lost at least $60 million in royalties due to defendants, and references copyright infringement/piracy.
- He acknowledges he has not registered copyrights for his books.
- The complaint lists fraud-related statutes but does not plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b).
- The court found the complaint fails to (a) clearly identify the legal claims (e.g., breach of contract vs. copyright infringement), and (b) plead sufficient factual detail to state a claim under Twombly/Iqbal.
- The court declined to issue summons, denied without prejudice Fullybright’s pending motions (including for injunctive relief and marshal service), and ordered an amended complaint by September 30, 2025, warning that failure to amend could lead to dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim under §1915 screening | Fullybright alleges entitlement to $60M in royalties and alleges infringement/piracy | Defendants (implicitly) lack notice of specific claims and factual bases; copyright claims may be premature without registration | Complaint fails to state a claim; court declines to issue summons and orders amendment |
| Whether copyright claims may proceed without registration | Fullybright references copyright infringement | Defendants would assert that registration is a precondition to suit | Court notes copyright registration is a precondition to infringement suits and plaintiff admits no registrations; claim unclear and likely premature |
| Whether fraud allegations meet Rule 9(b) | Fullybright lists fraud-related statutes | Defendants would require particularized factual allegations of fraud | Court finds fraud claims (if asserted) not pled with particularity; heightened pleading standard not met |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief/service by Marshal should be granted now | Fullybright seeks immediate injunctive and service relief | Defendants have not been served; injunction requires notice; marshal service premature | Court denies without prejudice all injunctive and marshal-service motions until summons are authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (applies §1915 screening to non-prisoner IFP plaintiffs)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (complaint may be dismissed for lack of cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising a plausible right to relief above the speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content allowing a reasonable inference of defendant’s liability)
- Oregon Catholic Press v. Ambrosetti, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (D. Or. 2016) (copyright registration is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement action)