Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Milan Kjalasan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on August 13, 2026, alleging that President Donald Trump and other defendants stole his intellectual property.
The complaint asserts that Trump used a 2021 proposal Kjalasan made to the U.S. government regarding an “American-Canadian Unification Project” in his 2024 presidential campaign.
Kjalasan also claims the government stole ideas for a self-driving vehicle (2000-2001), a Windows 8 desktop interface (2002-2003), a “Computer for Every Kid” project (2004-2006), and a “Sophisticated Homeless Shelter Project” (2018).
The complaint names defendants Patel and Nielsen, but fails to clearly allege their involvement beyond seeking an apology from Patel and identifying both as potential witnesses.
Kjalasan seeks $1 million or $10 million in damages.
The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) after granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Kjalasan to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.
The court found that Kjalasan failed to identify any statute protecting his ideas, and his claims fail under trademark, trade secret, and copyright law.
Copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, or concepts under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), and Kjalasan alleged only that his abstract ideas were taken.
The complaint also fails to state a claim against defendants Patel and Nielsen and does not satisfy Rule 8’s requirement for a short and plain statement of the claim.
The court denied without prejudice Kjalasan’s motion to relate this case to a separate action (Case No. 26-8418) involving different defendants.
Kjalasan must file an amended complaint or response by November 4, 2026, or the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- Abstract ideas are not protected by copyright law under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), regardless of their novelty or value.
- Pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis face mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for frivolous or legally insufficient claims.
- A complaint must identify a specific legal basis for relief and allege facts plausibly supporting each element of the claimed cause of action.
- Courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally and provide notice of deficiencies before dismissing with prejudice, but need not guess at unpled legal theories.
- Motions to relate cases require sufficient factual overlap; different defendants and distinct alleged wrongdoing weigh against relation.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B) to pro se complaints asserting intellectual property claims over abstract ideas.
The court methodically explains why ideas alone—absent expression fixed in a tangible medium, trade secret status, or trademark protection—are not actionable property interests under federal IP law.
The decision reinforces that pro se status does not relieve a plaintiff of the obligation to allege a cognizable legal theory and factual basis for each claim against each defendant.
The order also demonstrates the court’s obligation to provide specific guidance on deficiencies to enable effective amendment, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent requiring notice of pleading defects.
The order did not finally dismiss the action.
It gave Kjalasan until November 4, 2026, either to file an amended complaint or to explain why the existing pleading states a claim.
Any amendment must stand on its own, identify the particular conduct attributed to each defendant, and include every claim and defendant without incorporating earlier filings by reference.