Filed: Jun. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-27-2007 Stukes v. Knowles Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-1255 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Stukes v. Knowles" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 874. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/874 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unite
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-27-2007 Stukes v. Knowles Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-1255 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Stukes v. Knowles" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 874. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/874 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-27-2007
Stukes v. Knowles
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1255
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Stukes v. Knowles" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 874.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/874
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-263 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1255
________________
BLAYNEY B. STUKES,
Appellant
v.
MATHEW KNOWLES, MR.; TINA KNOWLES, C.E.O. OF MUSIC WORLD
ENTERTAINMENT; DEBRA LEE, CHAIRMAN OF BLACK ENTERTAINMENT;
BOB JOHNSON, FOUNDER OF BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION;
LOWRY MAYS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD; MARK MAYS, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS;
KENNETH "BABY FACE EDMONDS; TRACEY EDMONDS, OF LEFACE
RECORDS; JAMES JIMMY JAM HARRIS, III; TERRY LEWIS; BRITNEY SPEARS;
USHER; SHELIA ESCOVEDO; MONTEL JORDON; RAMIYAH; BREAKWATER;
DENIECE WILLIAMS; ISLEY BROS; HALL AND OATE'S; MIKI HOWARD;
FORCE MD; THE SYSTEM GROOVE; EMOTIONS; ANITA BAKER; LISA LISA &
CULT JAM; TIMEX SOCIAL CLUB; PAULA ABDUL; JON B; LISA STANFIELD;
GLORIA ESTEFAN; KENNY LATTIMORE; GLEN JONES; NEW EDITION;
MADONNA; KELLY PRICE; DONNA SUMMER; WHITNEY HOUSTON; MARIAH
CAREY; STEVE WONDER; SURFACE; SISQO; BOYZ II MEN; FREDDIE
JACKSON; THE JETS; RAPHAEL SAADIG; JEFFREY OSBORNE; SOUNDS OF
BLACKNESS; YOLANDA ADAMS; DONNIE MCCURKIN; EARTH WIND & FIRE;
CASE; LARRY GRAHAM; DIANA ROSS; TINA TURNER; DIANNE REEVES;
QUINCY JONES; JAMES INGRAM; BOBBY CALDWALL; TAMIA; MUSIQ SOUL
CHILD; DEBORAH COX; BOBBY BROWN; KEITH SWEAT; GEORGE MICHAEL;
CHAKA KHAN RUFUS; AL B. SURE; ATLANTIC STAR; SWING OUT SISTER;
CHERRELLE; ALEXANDER O'NEAL; HALL AND OATES; PATTI LABELLE
___________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
(E.D. PA. Civ. No. 07-cv-00198)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
June 7, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 27, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Blayney Stukes appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his
complaint as frivolous. Because we agree with the District Court and conclude that this
appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On January 17, 2007, Stukes filed a confused and convoluted complaint alleging
that 72 defendants violated his civil and human rights. In particular, Stukes claims that:
(1) Mathew and Tina Knowles “sabotaged” his relationship with their daughter, musician
Beyonce Knowles, and have, among other things, harassed him, assaulted him, and ruined
his reputation; (2) numerous record company executives and musicians used
“ghostwriters to produce songs” about his life story without his permission; and (3) the
Philadelphia Police Department failed to respond to his niece’s 911 call due to the
influence of Mathew and Tina Knowles. The District Court dismissed the complaint as
2
frivolous because it was “unable to extract from its ramblings a legal claim.” Stukes
appeals.
Stukes is proceeding in forma pauperis, so we review this appeal to determine
whether “it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact” and thus should be dismissed
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Stukes’s
complaint, which we review in the most generous light possible, clearly lacks an arguable
legal basis. Preliminarily, he maintains that the defendants violated his human rights
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“the Declaration”). However, the
Declaration is not a treaty or international agreement and “does not of its own force
impose obligations as a matter of international law.” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
542 U.S.
692, 734-35 (2004). Thus, the Declaration cannot support Stukes’s claims.
If Stukes’s complaint is viewed as alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, he must show that the defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional or
statutory right while acting under color of state law. Kaucher v. County of Bucks,
455
F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006). This he cannot do. First, even if we accepted Stukes’s
complaint as true, he does not state claims for the violation of any federally protected
right. Although certain allegations—such as those for assault, harassment, and
defamation (injury to reputation)—may be actionable under state law, they do not
3
implicate any federal constitutional or statutory right.1 Stukes’s complaint thus lacks
legal merit on this basis alone. Second, it is beyond question that neither the Knowles
family nor the record company executives and musicians are state actors or acted under
color of state law.2 See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.,
500 U.S. 614, 620-22
(1991) (explaining state actor and state action standards). As such, Stukes’s claims have
no arguable legal merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
1
Stukes does assert that the Philadelphia Police Department discriminated against
his niece when they failed to respond to her 911 telephone call. However, even if the
police did in some way violate his niece’s civil rights, Stukes “cannot sue for the
deprivation of another’s civil rights.” O’Malley v. Brierley,
477 F.2d 785, 789 (3d Cir.
1973). See Archuleta v. McShan,
897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[R]egardless of
what happened to plaintiff’s father, this case turns upon whether plaintiff personally
suffered any deprivation of a constitutional right possessed by him individually.”).
2
Stukes also alleges that he had “problems” and a “run in” with a public library
security guard. Private security guards can, in some circumstances, act under color of
state law. See Griffin v. Maryland,
378 U.S. 130, 135 (1964). However, in this case,
apart from failing to allege that the security guard deprived him of his civil rights, Stukes
provides no information that could lead to the inference that the security guard was
“possessed of state authority and purport[ed] to act under that authority,” as is required to
show state action.
Id. 4