Guillermo Alfonso Salazar-Velasquez v. Robert Alan Soltis
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. Background.
On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff, a federal inmate in California, filed a “Motion-Complaint.” [Dkt. 1]. On March 7, 2025, he filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees. [Dkt. 3].
The Defendants are two private attorneys Plaintiff had hired in relation to Plaintiff’s patent application. [Dkt. 1 at 2]. Defendants allegedly “kept the Certificate issued by U.S. Patent Office from [Plaintiff], but they also took possession of the Patent without proper authorization from [Plaintiff] and have received monetary benefits of unknown amount from the invention and still refuse to communicate with [Plaintiff] as [Plaintiff] has tried unsuccessfully to communicate with both the Patent Attorneys.” Id. at 3.
On March 14, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why venue for this patent action was proper in the Central District of California. [Dkt. 9]. According to the Motion- Complaint, one of the Defendants resides in Portage, Michigan, while the other Defendant resides in Kamulea, Hawaii. [Dkt. 1 at 7].
On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Show Cause,” which the Court liberally construes as a response to the Order to Show Cause. …