Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Davon Chadewick White sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) due to financial hardship and was granted this status. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found it failed to state a claim. The complaint primarily alleged that Defendants (based in Cyprus, Canada, and the Czech Republic) complied with Arizona's age verification law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 18-701), which the Supreme Court upheld in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (2025). Plaintiff sought $3 million and release of his adult videos, but his complaint lacked proper legal claims and factual allegations sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff can proceed in forma pauperis due to inability to pay the filing fee while affording necessities of life.
- Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over foreign-based defendants and if venue is proper.
- Whether the complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and is frivolous or malicious.
Holdings
- The court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), finding he cannot afford the filing fee while covering necessities of life. The court also dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), determining the complaint failed to state a claim and was frivolous. The dismissal was further supported by the lack of personal jurisdiction over foreign-based Defendants due to no allegations of forum contacts.
- The court concluded that Arizona's age verification law, which requires verification to access adult content, is valid under the First Amendment as upheld by the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. Plaintiff's argument against the law's compliance by Defendants was rejected as insufficient to state a claim.
Remedies
- Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. This allows the plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee.
- This case is dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. The dismissal is based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim and compliance with Arizona's age verification law.
Legal Principles
The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to screen the in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), requiring dismissal if the complaint fails to state a claim. It also considered personal jurisdiction and venue issues, noting the defendants' foreign locations and the plaintiff's lack of allegations establishing forum contacts.
Precedent Name
- Hymas v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
- Kennedy v. Andrews
- Hairston v. Juarez
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
- Murray v. King Cnty. Ct.
- Watson v. Carter
- Bonin v. Calderon
- Wilhelm v. Rotman
- Packwood v. County of Contra Costa
- Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
- Lopez v. Smith
- Escobedo v. Applebees
Cited Statute
Arizona Age Verification Law
Judge Name
James A. Teilborg
Passage Text
- The United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar age verification law finding such a law does not violate the First Amendment. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 145 S. Ct. 2291 (2025). Thus, Arizona's law is analogously valid.
- Plaintiff's complaint does not set out counts, causes of action, or legal theories against any Defendant. The attached document appears to be a demand letter, not a formal complaint.
- Plaintiff has made no allegations about Defendants' contacts with this forum that would give this Court personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 7 (stating Defendants' primary offices are in Cyprus, Canada, and the Czech Republic)).