Redmond v. United States

Background

Redmond originally sued the United States of America and unnamed defendants. The original complaint asserted claims including breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and patent infringement. It alleged a conspiracy involving a government grant to build electric cars, bribery of politicians, and manipulation of the stock market.

The court previously granted Redmond permission to proceed without paying the filing fee but found that his original complaint failed to state a claim and did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. That rule requires a complaint to give a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claims. The court directed Redmond to amend the complaint and clarify whom he intended to sue, noting that some government entities and individuals may be immune from suit. The earlier order also denied his requests to proceed anonymously and to have an attorney appointed.

Redmond then filed a 1,924-page First Amended Complaint against the United States of America. It listed 47 causes of action and alleged that the United States Government, through employees and contractors and orders from senior officials, caused several companies to become covertly part of the government and form a cartel. Redmond alleged harms including death threats, interference with obtaining legal counsel, defamation, social-media attacks, poisoning, and loss of Social Security and other public benefits.

Screening and requests

Because Redmond was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal before service if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The court stated that claims by a self-represented litigant are read liberally, but the litigant must still follow the pleading rules.

The court again denied Redmond’s requests to proceed anonymously and to have an attorney appointed. It also denied his requests to join individuals from the Department of Justice as co-plaintiffs, verify judges’ stock ownership and personal relationships with companies connected to the alleged cartel, conduct a public review for judicial bias, and require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to produce investigative reports. The court found no legal or factual basis for those requests.

Rule 8 deficiencies

The court held that the First Amended Complaint still violated Rule 8. It described the filing as an incomprehensible collection of allegations that did not provide a short and plain statement of the claims or the court’s jurisdiction. The court said a potential defendant would not know how to respond and that the court could not determine whether any allegation adequately stated a claim.

The court also found that the amended complaint was confusing, disorganized, and used legal terminology without providing facts showing that Redmond was entitled to relief. Although it named the United States, it mentioned other individuals without making clear which were actual defendants. The court required Redmond, in any further amendment, to identify each defendant, explain how that defendant allegedly caused his harm, state the relevant legal authority for each claim, and avoid duplicating claims.

Criminal allegations

The amended complaint included a claim labeled “Acts or Threats Involving Murder.” The court explained that a private person cannot bring criminal charges in federal court and that federal criminal statutes generally do not create a private civil claim. It therefore recommended that any criminal claim be dismissed without permission to amend. The court stated that Redmond would need to present suspected criminal conduct to federal law enforcement or the United States Attorney’s Office rather than pursue criminal charges in this civil action.

Disposition

The court stated that it would recommend dismissal because of the amended complaint’s defects. But because Redmond was self-represented and the court could not determine that the problems could not be fixed by additional facts, it granted him another opportunity to amend. Redmond was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by May 26, 2022. The court stated that, if he did not file a timely amendment, it would recommend that the action be dismissed.

The court continued the initial case-management conference from May 26 to June 16, 2022. The opinion therefore did not dismiss the action at that point; it denied the specified requests, identified pleading defects, allowed another amendment, and made a future dismissal recommendation contingent on the next filing or on Redmond’s failure to amend.