Champean v. Rich et al, No. 1:2016cv01254 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to §1915(b)(1). Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 11/10/2016. (c/s to Plaintiff)(jlan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Champean v. Rich et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division TASHEIK ASHANTI CHAMPEAN a/k/a Douglas Howell, Plaintif, V. MICHAEL RICH AND ZACHARY TERWILLIGER, Deendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:16cv1254 (AJT/MSN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Tasheik Ashanti Champean a/k/a Douglas Howell, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, has iled a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (i.e., the Federal Acquisition Regulations). The nmed Defendants are Assistant United States Attoneys Michael Rich and Zachary Terwilliger, whom Plaintif identiies as "acting agents or the Commonwealth of Virginia." Plaintif has paid the statutory iling ee and the administrative fee or this action. Ater reviewing Plainti's submissions, the Court has determined that his suit must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) as rivolous. 1 1 Section 1915A provides: (a) Screening.-The court shall review, beore docketing, if easible or, in any event, s soon s practicable ater docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress rom a govenmental entity or oicer or employee of a govenmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the cout shall identiy cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any potion of the complaint, if the complaint( I) is rivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief rom a defendant who is immune rom such relief. Dockets.Justia.com In reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or ails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § l 9 l 5A(b)( 1 ).2 Frivolous complaints are those that are based on "inarguable legal conclusion[s]" or "fanciul actual allegation[s]." Neitzke v. Wiliams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 ( I 989) (examining identical language of predecessor statute to § 191 SA). The complaint in this case consists of several sections. In the irst, entitled "Special Notice to the Court," Plaintif notiies this Court of his "absolute ministerial right" to make a "restricted appearance" pursuant to Rule 8(E). Plaintif identiies himself as "a real lesh and blood man, a State Citizen and Inhabitant of the County of Alexandria, Virginia, by SPECIAL VISITATION In Propria Personam, not general to present this, his Notice and Demand or written proof (veriied and demonstrated evidence) of jurisdiction over His Proper Person and over the subject matter in the above entitled cause as known as 1: 12-CR-191."3 Plaintif urther asserts that a court has "no jurisdiction" to determine whether a complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or ailure to state a claim, Compl. at 2, and that "oicers of the court have no immunity." Id. at 3. Plaintif concludes that once this Court determines that jurisdiction is ••Jacking in the cause in question," he should be "assigned the minimum monetary values as per precedent ... [o] $25,000.00 per 23 minute period, i.e. $65,217.91 er hour, plus punitive damages .... " Id. at 4. 1 Although plaintif in this case has paid the iling ee, "the plain language of[§1915A] clearly allows the cout to conduct a review even if the plaintif is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has paid the ull fee." Johnson\'. Hill, 965 F. Supp. 1 487 (E.D. Va. 1997) (Smith, J.); see also, In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1 05 F.3d I I31. I 134 (6th Cir. 1997) ("District courts are required to screen [pursuant to § I9 I 5A] all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the ull iling ee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel. as the statute does not diferentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.") ' In Case No. I:12crl91, Plaintif was convicted on April 12, 2013 of violating the Hobbs Act and using a irearm during the commission of a violent crime. The prosecutors were the present Defendants, AUSA's Rich and Terwilliger. 2 Plaintif then attaches a document styled as an "Intenational Commercial Aidavit Presented As/Under Letter Rogatory." He states that the document is iled "as lawul public notice" under provisions of the UCC,and that "[t]he Secured Party signatory herein is executing this instrument, under his signature,expressly to declare his status as a Non-Resident Alien," "with no duress, in accord with the tems of the aorementioned private agreement," nunc pro tune to his eighteenth birthday. Compl. at 5. Plaintif next sets out a section captioned "Identiication of Moving Party" in which he describes himself as a "natural bon,ree,Living,breathing lesh and blood human with sentient and moral existence,a real man upon the soil,ajuris et dujure,also known as a Secured Party ject and an inhabitant,not a United States citizen." As such,"secured party/plaintif is not a sub o. or to. the Virginia states Constitution or the United States Constitution,its Ordinances, Statutes. Codes or Regulations ...." Compl.at 7. In the ollowing "State [sic] oflssues," Plaintif declares that he "tendered payment and a private administrative remedy to the named respondent through the Administrative Procedures Act ...requesting that case No: 1: 12-CR-191 be set of, settled and closed,and the Respondent obtained a court order or his release rom custody." Plaintif iled an Initial Financing Statement in the "commercial registry" at the Oice of the New York Secretay of State. Respondents deaulted "by their own choice," and Plaintif concludes that,accordingly,"there is no longer a controversy beore the court." Compl.at 8. Plaintif then includes a Notice of Void Judgment, in which he argues that the courts to which members of the public curently have access "have nojurisdiction over living men. When thejudge and the prosecutor use deceit and trickery to cause the living man to believe he is actually the deendant,those public oicials have breached their iduciary duties, and 3 breached their contract with the public, and are subject to legal actions." Campi. at 10. Plaintif asserts in a section entitled "Jurisdiction" that the burden of proving jurisdiction lies with ..the asserter" - in this case, the named Deendants - but although they have "had time and 2 diferent chances to respond," they have "gone silent." Compl. at 11. Plaintif "revokes rescinds and cancels all signatures," Campi. at 12, and declares himself the "Grantor and Sole beneiciary of the TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. Cestui Que ie trust, a document vessel under the United States registry . . .." Compl. at 13 - 16. In a "caveat," Plaintif observes that Defendants have "had every chance to respond to the Proof of Claim that was addressed nd sent to them by Certiied Mail" and declares that "or the Court Record," Deendants "must comply with the Proof of Claim answering each question that has been presented by Aidavit Form and sent back to the Court.' Compl. at 16. Plaintif then provides "Judicial Notice" that he "appoints" the Deendants "as co-trustees or a judicial or administrative matter in which the TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. Cestui Que ie trust may be involved, past, present, and uture, and speciically or Case No. l:12-CR-191," and he "speciically appoint[s] the trustees to settle and close the matter," "zeroing the account," while "exercis[ing] scrupulous good aith and candor towards, and or the beneit and on behalf of, TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR." Compl. at 18. Last, in a section entitled "Relief Sought and Conclusion," Plaintif asserts that Deendnts "knowingly and willingly allow[ed] the STATE OF VIRGINIA to proceed against the Secured Party. committing a malfeasance of justice, through negligence and/or inadvertence . . . ." He states that "the Secured Party is the Holder-in-Due-Course and has established an un-rebuttable Superior Claim over that of the STATE OF VIRGINIA over the debtor." Thereore, he argues, the judgment in Case No. 1: 12crl 91 must be "vacated or want to Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Dismiss [sic] with Prejudice;" he should be discharged rom the custody of the State of Virginia; 4 and a hearing should be convened to appoint Michael Rich and Zachary Terwilliger as "Trustee[s] ofTASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. and release/discharged rom any and all alleged obligations to the State of Virginia." Compl. at 19-20. Plaintif has appended a number ofexhibits to the complaint, including a UCC Financing Statement and numerous other inancial documents. To the extent to which Plaintirs allegations are comprehensible, it is readily apparent that they arc based on "inarguable legal conclusion[s]" and "fanciul actual allegation[s]." Netzke, 490 U.S. at 325.4 Accordingly, the complaint is frivolous, and it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as rivolous pursuant to § 191SA(b)( 1 ). This is a inal order or puposes of appeal. To appeal, plaintif must ile a written Notice of Appeal with the Clerk ofthe Court within sixty (60) days ofthe date ofthis Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A Notice ofAppeal is a short statement stating a desire to appeal an order and identiying the date ofthe order plaintif wishes to appeal. Failure to ile a timely Notice of Appeal waives plaintifs right to appeal this decision. The Clerk is directed to orward a copy ofthis Memorandum Order and Opinion to Plaintiff and to close this civil action. Certain of Plainti's allegations suggest that he may be attempting to claim entitlement to release based on the Redemptionist theoy. See Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198,203 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008). In pt, Redemptionists posit that a person has a split personality, consisting of a real or "living" person and a ictional entity known as a "strawman," and that the govenment has power only over the latter. Pursuant to this doctrine,the real peson can ree himself rom incarceration by iling UCC inancing statements or other inancial documents,as petitioner apparently sought to do here,thereby acquiring an interest in his strawman. Thereater,the real person theoretically can demand that govenment oicials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's name or to keep him in custody. Mclaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F.Supp.2d 20 I, 210 (D. Conn. 20 I 0). If Petitioner in this action in act is seeking to establish some sot of entitlement pursuant to the Redemptionist theory,such n argument "has absolutely no legal basis," Tirado v. Nw Jersy, Civil No. 10-3408 (JAP), 2011 WL 1256624,at •4-5 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2011) and "is legally rivolous." Ferguson-El v. irginia, Civil Action No. 3: IOCV577, 2011 WL 3652327, at •3 (E.D. Va. Aug.18.2011) (Payne, J.). 5 Alexandria. Virginia November I 0, 2016 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
