The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
9
10
ALONZO JAMICHAEL SEVERSON, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01034-LK
11
Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING
12 v. COMPLAINT
13 DISNEY, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15
16 On May 30, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Alonzo Jamichael Severson filed a complaint alleging
17 that Defendants Disney, Universal Music Group, Major League Baseball, and Vivendi were
18 involved in the “[t]heft of [i]ntellectual [p]roperty” “to gain money and success[.]” Dkt. No. 5 at
19 4. He alleges that “the events giving rise to” his claims occurred in “King County Jail” from “2016–
20 2017,” and that they resulted in otherwise unspecified “Loss of Life, Loss of Life’s Work.” Id.
21 On June 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida granted Mr. Severson’s
22 IFP application, but recommended that the complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
23 before issuance of summonses. Dkt. No. 4 at 1.
24
1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they “possess only that power
2 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
3 377 (1994). This means that the Court can only hear certain types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A.,
4 Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 438 (2019). The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established
5 where (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
6 treaties of the United States” or (2) the parties have diverse citizenship (e.g., residents of different
7 states) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The Court must
8 dismiss an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction” over the
9 case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss
10 plaintiffs’ complaints if their claims (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail to state a claim upon
11 which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
12 such relief. The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. See United States v.
13 Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010).
14 Here, Mr. Severson seeks $10 trillion in damages from each Defendant for alleged
15 copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Dkt. No. 5 at 5. Despite
16 liberally construing his complaint, the Court cannot determine (1) what it is that Defendants
17 allegedly infringed, see Dkt. No. 5 at 4; (2) whether Mr. Severson has intellectual property rights,
18 or any other legal right, in the allegedly infringed intellectual property; or (3) the means by which
19 such property was allegedly stolen from him at King County Jail in 2016 or 2017, see id. In other
20 words, Mr. Severson has failed to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
21 [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Severson’s complaint with leave to
23 amend. If he chooses to amend, Mr. Severson must provide the factual basis for his claims as
24 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. A timely filed amended complaint operates as a
1 complete substitute for an original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
2 1992). For that reason, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the claim(s)
3 asserted, the specific facts Mr. Severson believes support the claim, and the specific relief
4 requested. If Mr. Severson does not file a proper amended complaint within 21 days of the date of
5 this Order, the Court will dismiss this action and close the case.
6 Dated this 21st day of August, 2025.
7 A
8 Lauren King
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24