The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DMT MAC TRUONG, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-491-R
)
)
KEVIN STITT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is a pro se Complaint filed by Plaintiff Mac Truong, on his behalf
and ostensibly on behalf of twenty-four additional individuals or entities. The Court has
reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and finds that it should be dismissed upon filing as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court should dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has been granted
if at any time it determines the action is frivolous or malicious, seeks relief from a person
immune from such relief, or fails to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Although § 1915 directly references prisoners, § 1915(e)(2) applies to all litigants,
prisoners and non-prisoners alike. See Lister v. Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312
(10th Cir.2005)(28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires a district court to dismiss the complaint
of a party proceeding IFP whenever the court determines the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from persons immune from
such relief); see also Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923 (10th Cir.2009)(affirming
dismissal of nonprisoner's complaint as frivolous and as stating no claim for relief, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)); Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day
Saints, 304 F. App’x 666 (10th Cir.2008)(affirming dismissal of nonprisoner's frivolous
complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)) (citing cases). In considering whether to dismiss a claim
sua sponte for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and must
draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir.1991). In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court applies the same legal
standards applicable to pleadings drafted by counsel, but the complaint must be liberally
construed. See id. at 1110. However, “[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does
not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized
legal claim could be based.” Id.
The Court first dismisses all Plaintiffs except Dr. Truong. In general, a party may
plead and conduct his own case in person or through a licensed attorney. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654. A pro se litigant, however, may not represent anyone other than himself. See e.g.,
Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Dist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.2001); Iannaccone v. Law, 142
F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir.1998) (“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one's self, a person
may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause.”). Although the individual
averments allegedly made by the Plaintiffs are stated in the first person, only Plaintiff
Truong signed the Complaint. He cannot, however, proceed without the signatures of those
persons, who must either obtain representation or appear on their own behalf.1
1 Although issues of credibility do not factor into the Court’s analysis, the Court is dubious that former Presidents
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as the many actors, politicians, and well-known business figures—including
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet—have agreed to participate in this litigation.
With regard to the substance of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds that the Complaint
is frivolous. Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey. The named Defendants include the
Governor of Oklahoma, three Oklahoma legislators, the former President of the United
States, five Supreme Court justices, and the wife of one of those justices. According to his
jurisdictional statement, this case arises under federal law and Plaintiff is entitled to
recovery for the violation of copyright as well as for civil rights violations. He asserts that
Oklahoma Senate Bill 612, to be codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 1-731.4 and set to go into
effect on August 26, 2022, which restricts abortion in Oklahoma except in an attempt to
save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency, violates the United States
Constitution.2 He contends that another recent provision, Okla. Stat, tit. 63 § 1-745.39,
violated his copyrighted material because it permits civil actions by any person against
those who perform abortions.
The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge SB 612 on constitutional
grounds. “In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to
prosecute the action.” Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004).The
case or controversy requirement of Article III limits federal jurisdiction to cases in which
the plaintiff can demonstrate that (1) he has suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it is likely that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1326
2 Plaintiff contends, in part, that the bill cannot stand in light of Roe v. Wade. Since the filing of the Complaint the
Supreme Court issued Dobbs v. Jackson, --- U.S. ---, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), which overturned Roe by holding that
abortion is not a right under the federal constitution. Plaintiff ‘s Complaint was filed in apparent response to the leaking
of the opinion in that case.
(10th Cir.1997) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, (1992)).
Plaintiff, a male residing in New Jersey, is simply too far removed from Oklahoma to
challenge the statute, and furthermore, he has not alleged that he is subject to the statute he
seeks to challenge. Rather, he complains throughout about the alleged violation of
women’s right to privacy, which clearly does not implicate his rights. Via a Motion for
Summary Judgment Plaintiff argues that he has standing because: (1) he is a naturalized
U.S. citizen; (2) he is the father of a woman of child-bearing age who is concerned about
anti-abortion legislation; (3) he loves to have sex and wishes to do so without being overly
concerned about accidental pregnancy; and (4) he is the inventor of a machine that allows
people to have sex without being physically near one another. The Court finds that none of
these grounds provides Plaintiff with standing to challenge the Oklahoma statute.3
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to pursue a claim for copyright violation, his
claim fails. The Copyright Act protects the “original works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression,” including pictorial and graphic works. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
To state a claim of copyright infringement, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) ownership of a valid
copyright and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Jacobsen
v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 942 (10th Cir. 2002). In order to establish a claim for
copyright violation Plaintiff must allege “there is a substantial similarity between those
aspects of Plaintiff's work which are legally protectable and the Defendants' work.” La
3 Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff argues that Senate Bill 612 is unconstitutional in light of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
113 (1973), the Supreme Court pronouncement in Dobbs that Roe is no longer good law renders Plaintiff’s challenge
to the statute moot.
Resolana Architects v. Reno Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, 1180 (10th Cir. 2009)(quotation marks
and citation omitted). To make this determination, the court's task consists of “separating
unprotectable ideas from protectable expression in [the plaintiff]'s copyrighted works and
comparing the remaining protectable expression to the [defendant's] images to determine
whether they are substantially similar.” Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 at 1200 n.4 (10th
Cir. 2012). Plaintiff purports to have copyrighted an idea; however, copyright protection
does not “extend to any idea ... [or] concept ... regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). “This
provision enshrines the fundamental tenet that copyright protection extends only to the
author's original expression and not to the ideas embodied in that expression.” Blehm, 702
F.3d at 1200 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he copyright law is not a patent
law: it protects the expression of ideas rather than the underlying ideas themselves.” Enter.
Mgmt. Ltd., Inc. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112, 1117 (10th Cir. 2013). Simply stated,
Plaintiff’s idea of creating community civic officers who could issue tickets to violators of
enforceable city regulations or ordinances is an idea, not subject to copyright. Accordingly,
the provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 1-745.39 did not violate his copyright and dismissal
is appropriate.
Having reviewed the Complaint and its attachments as well as Plaintiff’s Notice of
Motion, the Court hereby DISMISSES all Plaintiffs for the reasons set forth herein. The
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Stitt (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT as is
Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. No. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of July 2022.
DAVID L. RUSSELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE