Rudolph et al v. International Olympic Committee et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. Due to the frivolous nature of the filing, dismissal of this action is warranted. The Court will denter a separate Order of dismissal. cc:Plaintiffs, pro se (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-P50-M
ERIC ROBERT RUDOLPH et al.
PLAINTIFFS
v.
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action was purportedly filed by Plaintiffs Eric Robert Rudolph and Hart Jones
against the International Olympic Committee, Vladimir Putin, and Usain Bolt. The action seeks
a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The complaint alleges the following:
The International Olympic Committee plans to violate Plaintiff Eric Robert
Rudolphs civil rights by Defaming his character as a terrorist in the 2018 S.
Korean Olympics and using Photos Bearing the Photo of Rudolph to Justify
tighter security, metal detectors, warrantless bag searches, eaves dropping peoples
telephones at all Future Olympic Events using Eric Rudolph as a symbol of
terrorism and the bogeyman . . . to have citizens privacy to be violated. Vladimir
Putin is using Eric Rudolph’s Photograph as Justification to Invade Ukraine.
Usain Bolt takes steroids before he competes in the Olympics. Plaintiff Hart
Jones is cousins with Marion Jones which Usain Bolt sexually harasses and Hart
Jones has Audio tapes of Usain Bolt Admitting he does Hgh and Usain Bolt said
he is going to kill Hart Jones for Whistleblowing Usain Bolts steroid use. . . . The
International Olympic Committee are terrorists who donate their proceeds From
Ticket Sales to Al-qaeda. . . . Plaintiff seeks a restraining order Against Usain
Bolt Entering the Olympics cause he is on steroids.
Due to the outlandish nature of the allegations, the Court examined the return address on
the envelope containing the complaint. The return address is a Pennsylvania state prison located
in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. The Court takes judicial notice that Eric Robert Rudolph was
convicted of bombing the Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta,
Georgia, and other crimes. A review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ website reveals that
Rudolph is serving a life sentence at the Supermax federal penitentiary in Florence, Colorado,
and is not housed at the Pennsylvania state prison located at the return address.
Further, a review of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (PDOC) website
reveals that there is no inmate named Hart Jones incarcerated by the PDOC. However, an inmate
named Jonathan Lee Riches, well known to this Court, is housed at SCI Benner Township
located at the same address—301 Institution Drive, Bellefonte, PA 16823—as that listed in the
return address. Riches has filed numerous similarly frivolous and scandalous actions naming
celebrities/public figures as plaintiffs and defendants in this Court and in other federal district
courts throughout the country. The Court concludes, since this complaint was mailed from the
institution where Riches, but neither Rudolph or Jones, is incarcerated and the complaint
contains frivolous and implausible allegations similar to the types of allegations made by Riches
in the past, that this action was most likely filed by Riches.
Due to the frivolous nature of the filing, dismissal of this action is warranted. See Apple
v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible,
attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”).
The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal.
Date:
May 27, 2014
cc:
Plaintiffs, pro se
4414.010
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?