Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Julian Okeayainneh Reg. # 20515-112 v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

March 28, 2019

JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH REG. # 20515-112
v.
U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          DOUGHTY JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is an amended complaint [doc. 11] filed by pro se plaintiff Julian Okeayainneh under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671. Okeayainneh is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).

         I.

         Background

         Okeayainneh brings suit against the United States Department of Justice, former United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones, Assistant United States Attorneys Ann Marie Anaya and Lolita Aime Vasquez-Aguilu, IRS agent James Shoup, BOP Regional Director Matt Mangold, and FCIO Warden R. Myers. He claims he is subjected to “unlawful imprisonment” and appears to challenge his 2012 conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, of bank fraud, wire fraud, identity theft, and related charges. Doc. 11; see United States v. Okeayainneh et al., No. 0:11-cr-0087(1) (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2012).

         On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Okeayainneh's conviction but found that a sentencing enhancement had been misapplied and remanded the case for resentencing. United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2014). Okeayainneh sought relief through a § 2255 motion and other pro se motions collaterally attacking his conviction, filed in the District of Minnesota, which the court denied. United States v. Okeayainneh, 2015 WL 13358236 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2015). He also appealed his new sentence to the Eighth Circuit, which denied relief on September 9, 2016. United States v. Okeayainneh, 668 Fed. App'x 681 (8th Cir. 2016). Okeayainneh then filed a second § 2255 motion and other collateral attacks on his conviction in the trial court, which denied same on August 1, 2018. Okeayainneh, No. 0:11-cr-0087(1), at doc. 1256. Okeayainneh appealed the court's ruling to the Eighth Circuit, which denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal on December 21, 2018. Id. at doc. 1276. Most recently, Okeayainneh filed two “Motions to Take Notice of Adjudicative Facts” in the trial court in January 2019, which are still pending. Id. at docs. 1277, 1279. He also filed a civil rights suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the United States Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on FOIA requests he had issued to those agencies. Okeayainneh v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 3:18-cv-1195 (N.D. Tex.). That suit is still pending. Id.

         In the instant suit Okeayainneh raises numerous claims challenging his conviction and sentence. Doc. 11. He also complains that the BOP has transferred him to FCIO in retaliation for/an effort to obstruct his efforts at obtaining post-conviction relief, and that his term of imprisonment is somehow invalidated by an alleged trial court order vacating his restitution obligation. Id. at 10- 11. In relief he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Frivolity Review

         Okeayainneh has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.