United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division
DENNIS L. MAXBERRY, Plaintiff,
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants
Dennis L. Maxberry, Plaintiff, Pro se, West Allis, WI.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Judge.
Dennis L. Maxberry is a resident of West Allis, Wisconsin. Proceeding without an attorney, Maxberry has filed suit against the University of Kentucky Medical Center, the Markey B. Cancer Center, and the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. [R. 1]. Maxberry has also filed a renewed motion to waive payment of the filing fee. [R. 9].
The information contained in Maxberry's fee motion indicates that he lacks sufficient assets or income to pay the $350.00 filing fee, and the Court will therefore grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court must therefore conduct a preliminary review of Maxberry's complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A district court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A), overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 2013). The Court evaluates Maxberry's complaint under a more lenient standard because he is not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). At this stage, the Court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and his legal claims are liberally construed in his favor. See Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
In his complaint, Maxberry alleges that he was a custodian at the UK Medical Center in the 1980s, and claims that the defendants are infringing his rights under the patent and copyright laws. He further
contends that the defendants are " sabotaging" and " stalking" him, both purportedly in violation of federal criminal law. His subsequent allegations are progressively more unusual: Maxberry suggests that venue in this case is governed by a " 4th Amendment seizure," and invokes the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (" RICO" ) because of " a lobbying Political issue against the Plaintiff who does not participate in State of Kentucky Political harassment against others. Except for when he was sent to El Paso in 1976 after the Kentucky Texas Western Civil Rights issue the plaintiff was sabotaged by his home state Kentucky and caused an inconvenience of his discharge. . . ." [R. 1, pp. 4-5]. Plaintiff's complaint then makes a series of conclusory and nonsensical references to his discharge from the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Texas, a denial of benefits by the Veterans Administration, barriers to accessing his rights under patent and copyright law, and violations of his constitutional rights. Id. at 5-6.
Maxberry's intellectual property claims are no more lucid. He contends that the defendants are infringing U.S. Patent No. 08/632,592, " Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area" (the " 8 in 1 patent" ), by " sabotage[ing] the Patent and Copyright owner by having children by under legal protected females in the Patent owner's name and is able to spy under 18 U.S.C. § 1952 on the Plaintiff and induce employment and equity under the following claim." [R. 1, p. 6]. Apart from the bizarre nature of the foregoing allegation, the patent number Maxberry provides is not for an issued patent at all, but rather is for a patent application, which in this case is actually for an " Apparatus for barbecue grilling of food," invented by John Frank Arnold as assigned to Flavorsavor Limited. Maxberry also claims that the defendants are violating his copyright in " his beginning writings in the Star Tour's Grand Hotel Resort" which he had submitted  to the City of Lexington where he had claimed to for financing to build his Hotel he would find the cure of Cancer." Id.
In his third patent infringement claim, Maxberry describes " U.S. Patent No. 08/632,592" quite differently, not as one for " Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area" , but as for a " System Provided Child Window Controls," and claims it was issued on March 30, 1999. In his fourth and fifth patent claims, Maxberry alleges that the very same " U.S. Patent No. 08/632,592" was issued on yet another date, May 10, 2005, and he refers to it variously as the " 551 patent," and the " 260 patent."  [R. 1, pp. 9-10, p. 10].
Maxberry indicates in his complaint that he attached copies of the patents in question, but the documents he
attached include only three pages of what appears to be a 1996 cover letter to the Patent and Trademark Office (" PTO" ). [R. 1-4]. A thorough search of the PTO's online database, which includes full text searchable data from 1976 to the present date, failed to identify Maxberry as the applicant for, inventor of, or assignee of any patent within that database. A search of the Copyright Office's online database identified Maxberry as the author of six works, but none of the titles or registration dates suggest any relation, by ...