McCullough v. United States of America, No. 3:2011cv00176 - Document 13 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/9/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DENNIS SCOTT McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. UNITED STATES 3:11CV176 OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Dennis Scott McCullough, a federal and in forma pauperis after paying the civil action. pursuant to The 28 matter U.S.C. §§ is I. the and PRELIMINARY proceeding full filing fee, before 1915(e)(2) inmate Court for pro se filed this evaluation 1915A. REVIEW This Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court state § determines a claim 1915(e)(2); claims based the on see upon action which 28 wis relief U.S.C. tt<an (1) § frivolous" may 1915A. be The or (2) granted." first indisputably meritless "fails 28 to U.S.C. standard includes legal theory,'" or claims where the "^factual contentions are clearly baseless.''7 Clay v. Yates, Williams, familiar 12(b) (6) . 809 F. 490 Supp. U.S. standard 417, 319, for a 427 327 (E.D. (1989)). motion to Va. 1992) The dismiss (quoting Neitzke v. second under standard Fed. R. is the Civ. P. "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of a complaint; importantly, surrounding the facts, of defenses." 952 (4th Miller, 1992) Federal Practice considering a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint Party (citing motion to Inc. see also Martin, v. N.C. for 7 F.3d 952. Martin, A, 1356 to favorable & F.2d Arthur as a are no assumption more of than truth." R. In claim, true and a the to the plaintiff. 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); This principle applies only to and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, they 943, (1990)). state taken 1130, contests 980 Wright § are resolve or the applicability failure light most however, v. Procedure allegations F.2d at factual allegations, not Charles dismiss Matkari, 980 of 5A and is viewed in the Mylan Labs., does the merits of a claim, Republican Cir. it tests the sufficiency conclusions, Ashcroft v. are not Iqbal, 129 because entitled S. Ct. to 1937, the 1950 (2009). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plain statement entitled to relief,' what the Bell Atl. . . . Corp. of is Plaintiffs and Twombly, alteration in original) (1957)). claim in order to claim v. the "require[] showing the 'a short pleader is 'give the defendant fair notice of the 550 grounds U.S. satisfy this upon 544, (quoting Conley v. cannot that only which 555 Gibson, it rests.'" (2007) 355 U.S. (second 41, 47 standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements omitted). of Instead, a cause of action." a plaintiff must Id. allege at 555 facts (citations sufficient raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id. omitted), face," 570, stating a claim that rather than merely is "plausible "conceivable." on its Id. "to (citation "A claim has id. at facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court liable to for draw the the misconduct (citing Bell Atl. a claim or claim, to inference alleged." that Iqbal. the 129 defendant S. Ct. 550 U.S. at 556). Therefore, survive dismissal for at is 1949 in order for failure to state a the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the [his or] 324 F.3d 761, Corp., 289 Corp.. complaint elements of Co. , reasonable 765 309 F.3d 193, F.3d 270, 281 her claim." (4th Cir. 213 Bass v. 2003) (4th Cir. (4th Cir. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & (citing Dickson v. Microsoft 2002); Iodice v. United States, 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. act as Leeke, the inmate's constitutional face of (4th Cir. Hampton, 574 his advocate, claims the complaint. 1997) 775 F.2d 1147, F.2d 1274, (4th Cir. 1978), it does not sua sponte developing statutory and inmate failed to See (Luttig, 1151 Brock J., 1278 v. clearly Carroll, concurring); (4th Cir. 1985). 107 raise F.3d Beaudett v. on the 241, 243 City of II. SUMMARY OF CLAIM McCullough initiated this action by filing a document entitled "RULE No. to 8 Civil 2.) In this release his body or Setoff document, from prison. is Government that Procedure/ being in which as DNA which argument is stems collateral the debt the Government's use of McCullough asserts His held Discharge has in been as that he from the debt settled. of his name, held a Debts." is entitled notion action with that the McCullough argues case number, collateral (Docket in fingerprints, the amount of $100, 000, 000, 000 "will be met with a tort claim and a legal binding lien against all parties involved." III. McCullough See Monroe v. appears Beard, United States split 536 subscribe F.3d theory personality: . 2, at 2.) ANALYSIS 198, Court of Appeals "Redemptionist" a to (Docket No. to 203 "redemptionist n.4 (3d Cir. theory." 2008). for the Third Circuit explained: . a . propounds real person called the "strawman." person The that a person has and a fictional "strawman" purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1993, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt. Redemptionists claim that government only over the strawman and not over the has power live person, who remains free. Individuals can free themselves by filing UCC financing statements, thereby acquiring an interest in their strawman. Thereafter, the real person can demand that government officials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's prisoners, to keep him in officials refuse, The inmates are name or, custody. in encouraged the If to case of government file liens against correctional officers and other prison officials in order to extort their release from prison. Adherents of this scheme also advocate that inmates copyright their names to their names court papers. Id. in filing public liens records against such officials as using indictments or "Arguments based on this and other similar theories have been rejected by courts resources." 3895463, Mar. (Bankr. Williams, 24, frivolous, § being No. the action frivolous Nos. E.D. 2005). DIRECTED to note U.S.C. as In re Barnes, at *5 also Ray v. Or. justify 10-46482-399, Mo. Sept. 29, CV-04-863-HU, Because will and a WL 697041, claims DISMISSED. The the disposition of judicial 2010 WL (citing cases); McCullough's be of 10-04302-399, 2010) 2005 waste the action are Clerk at *6 see (D. likewise will for purposes of be 28 1915(g). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to McCullough. And it is so ORDERED. Robert Date: LU** KfoLl Richmond, E. / / Payne (LtP Senior United States District Judge
]]>
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.
