McZeal’s Sprint Complaint Dismissed–Again

Posted on | May 28, 2008 | 1 Comment

2008-1374 McZeal v. Sprint/Nextel
SD/TX H-06-1775

Alfred McZeal appeals from Judge Lynn Hughes’s Order dismissing his Complaint against Sprint/Nextel.  McZeal’s Complaint had been previously dismissed, but that was reversed and remanded by the CAFC.

McZeal acts pro se and has, well, a zeal for filing lawsuits.  He has filed numerous (at least 19) lawsuits and bankruptcies in the SD/TX, all of which have failed quickly.  He is now subject to an Order requiring that any new filings be vetted by the Chief Judge.

McZeal’s action against Sprint asserted over 30 different legal theories, including one for patent infringement of 6,763,226, which is directed to:

World-Wide-Walkie-Talkie, a high speed multifunction interstellar
wireless computer/instant messenger communicator, Personal Digital
Assistant (PDA), coupled with a resilient, robust, VoIP data network
and internet server method, deploying multiple wireless networks and
protocols such as Voice Over IP, GPRS, WAP, Bluetooth, PCS, I-Mode,
comprising a high speed Intel Pentium 4 Mobile or compatible Processor,
to formulate a internet gateway system (99) and network bridge (150)
for establishing instant low cost, real time global communications to
the Public Switched Telephone Network via the internet (54).  [Emphasis by PATracer.]

[I would include claim 1, but with 64 limitations ((a)-(mmm)), it is quite long.]  His Complaint alleged that the ‘226 is infringed by Sprint’s Motorola i930 cellular telephone.

The court, mindful of the latitude given to pro se litigants, held a hearing to determine whether there were any actual facts or basis for the Complaint.  Finding none, the court dismissed.

The CAFC reversed, finding that the Complaint contained a statement of jurisdiction, identified McZeal as the owner of a patent, alleged that Sprint’s product infringed that patent, and prayed for relief.  For a pro se plaintiff, apparently no other pleading requirements exist and courts should not dismiss because of form.  See Patently-O here for more on the first appeal’s decision.

After remand, the court seemed exasperated with the Federal Circuit’s review:

The court then conducted another hearing and gave McZeal 30 days to articulate a theory for his case, ordered the parties to work together and McZeal to produce documents.  McZeal failed to do anything and then failed to appear for the follow-up hearing–he did, however, file a motion to recuse the court for bias against pro se litigants.

When McZeal did appear, he was still unable to articulate how he had a case.  The court then dismissed for failure to state a claim and for want of prosecution.  The court concluded:

His motion to recuse will be denied.  Just as evil conspiracies are the only reason his businesses are not ruminative, irrational hostility is the only reason his lawsuits do not succeed.  Enough.

More Reading:

Second Order Dismissing Case

Comments