Harris v. Honor, 2:21-cv-00350

Pro se plaintiff Shakim Harris sued Lenon Honor for copyright infringement, seeking $10,000 and ownership/removal of Honor’s YouTube channels.
Harris is proceeding in forma pauperis; the court previously found deficiencies and ordered an amended complaint, which Harris never filed.
The operative complaint is a one-paragraph statement asserting infringement and prior YouTube complaints but containing no factual detail identifying any copyrighted work or acts of copying.
Applicable standards: courts review in forma pauperis complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) using the Rule 12(b)(6)/Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard; pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must allege sufficient facts.
The magistrate judge found the pleading fails both Rule 12(b)(6) (no plausible claim) and Rule 8 (no fair notice to defendant).
Because Harris did not amend as ordered, the magistrate concluded further amendment would be futile and recommended dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of copyright claim	Harris alleges copyright infringement and requests damages and channel control	Not expressly pleaded; court found complaint lacks factual allegations of a valid copyright or copying	Claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6): plaintiff did not allege ownership or copying, so dismissal recommended
Adequacy under Rule 8 (notice pleading)	Complaint states the claim but gives no facts	Not asserted by defendant; court determined statement is too vague to give fair notice	Complaint fails Rule 8; does not provide fair notice to Honor
Failure to comply with court order to amend	Harris did not file an amended complaint as ordered	N/A	Because plaintiff failed to amend and amendment would be futile, dismissal recommended

Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014) (explains elements required to plead copyright infringement)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (in forma pauperis dismissal standard mirrors Rule 12(b)(6))
Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2014) (discusses pleading standards and plausibility)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se filings are liberally construed but plaintiffs must follow rules)
Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (a plaintiff must plead specific factual allegations for each claim)
Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2008) (pro se plaintiffs bear burden to allege sufficient facts)
Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (court will not supply additional factual allegations or construct claims for plaintiff)