Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : DAVID L. WHITEHEAD : v. VIACOM, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution are several motions filed by Plaintiff David L. Whitehead and by Defendant Viacom, Inc. ("Viacom"). Among Plaintiff's pending motions is a motion for Among Defendant's pending : Civil Action No. DKC 2002-1899 :

recusal by the court from this case.

motions are a motion to strike Plaintiff's first amended complaint (which is actually the second amended complaint), a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a motion for an injunction requiring that Plaintiff obtain court approval before filing future papers with the court. The issues have been fully briefed and no Local Rule 105.6. For reasons that

hearing is deemed necessary.

follow, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion for recusal, grant Defendant's motion to strike the second amended complaint, grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, and grant Defendant's motion for an injunction. All other motions will be denied as moot.

I.

Background

Plaintiff filed this suit pro se in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland on April 19, 2001, alleging copyright infringement, fraud, conspiracy, and other various claims against Defendant Viacom and "Unnamed Does 1-50 or more."1 This is

not the first time Plaintiff has filed suit against a media defendant alleging infringement of various works and other vague claims. Indeed, Plaintiff has filed at least nine lawsuits in this court and 23 lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against film companies, publishing companies, actors, producers, writers, and directors, as well as former President Bill Clinton, the CIA, and others. Every one of

Plaintiff's suits has been dismissed or resolved in the defendants' favor.2 The court in the District of Columbia became so frustrated

with Plaintiff's "opaque, nonsensical and frivolous" lawsuits and "egregious abuses of the judicial system" that, on February 23, 2001, it enjoined Plaintiff from filing anything with the court without prior court approval. See Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures

Plaintiff originally filed this case in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in April 2001, naming a non-existent entity, "Viacom/UPN," as the defendant. It appears that Plaintiff then amended his complaint on August 14, 2001, properly naming Viacom as a Defendant. Because of confusion regarding the name of the Defendant, Viacom apparently did not receive a copy of the amended complaint until May 30, 2002. See Paper no. 1,

Download David L. Whitehead v. Viacom, et al..pdf

Maryland Law