Redman v. United States of America et al, No. 7:2022cv00684 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge James P. Jones on 12/2/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Redman v. United States of America et al Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION RONALD EUGENE REDMAN, JR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:22CV00684 OPINION JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Ronald Eugene Redman, Jr., Pro Se Plaintiff. Plaintiff Ronald Eugene Redman, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against the United States, the White House, and Presdient Biden. Liberally construed, Redman’s Complaint alleges that these defendants have unlawfully used his “Christain [sic] name.” Compl. 1, ECF No. 1. After review of the Complaint, I conclude that the lawsuit must be summarily dismissed as frivolous. Redman’s allegations are brief. He alleges that the defendants unlawfully used his name “as strawman for corp. gains” and did so “fraudently [sic] Bye [sic] dec[ei]t and trickery.” Id at 2. As relief, Redman seeks “to become secured credit party” regarding his own name and assets. Id. at 3. On the attached Civil Cover Dockets.Justia.com Sheet, Redman states that his lawsuit falls under diversity jurisdiction because he is a “sovereign American citizen,” that he is suing under Bivens, and that he seeks $183,000,000 in damages.1 Civ. Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1. The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A frivolous claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (interpreting “frivolous” in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). My statutory authority to summarily dismiss frivolous complaints includes “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless” or which describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. Redman’s sovereign citizen claims and other contentions in this lawsuit fall squarely into this class of claims. Accordingly, I will summarily dismiss the action under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous. A separate Final Order will be entered herewith. 1 The Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1, also indicates that the case was removed from state court, that it is multidistrict litigation, and that it involves several types of claims including: fraud, truth in lending, personal property damage, copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, and “IRS—Third Party 26 U.S.C. § 7609.” With the exception of alleged fraud, none of these types of claims is mentioned in the Complaint itself. -2- DATED: December 2, 2022 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge -3-
]]>
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.
