Rosondich v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 8/2/16. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
DUSTIN BRYCE ROSONDICH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-1112-JDT-egb

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On May 8, 2015, the pro se Plaintiff, Dustin Bryce Rosondich, filed a document which the
Clerk docketed as a complaint, accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos.
1 & 2.) After Plaintiff filed a proper in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 6), U.S. Magistrate
Judge Edward G. Bryant granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7). On July 11, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Bryant issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended
the Court dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (ECF No. 12.) Objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days, on or
before July 28, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). However, Plaintiff
has filed no objection.
The originating document filed by Plaintiff in this case is captioned “Court of Record, Notice
of Void Judgment, Rosondich court at United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee” and titled “Void Judgment for Fraud, RE: Dustin Bryce Rosondich, Case #14-417 from
circuit court Jackson Tennessee.” (ECF No.1 at 1.) He names the State of Tennessee and Tennessee

Attorney General Herbert H. Slattery as Respondents. (Id.) In its entirety, the substance of the
document states:
This is an Article III court of record correcting a fraudulent instrument that
negatively affected me, a man. Dustin B Rosondich a man is hereby invoking this
article III court of record.
The orders from Circuit Court Jackson Tennessee case #14-417 named below are
void for fraud:
1. Resisting arrest
2. Violation of registration law
3. Driving while unlicenced
Reasons for fraud (there are many more but this will suffice):
A.

The victim was originally City of Jackson but morphed to STATE OF
TENNESSEE

B.

STATE OF TENNESSEE did not sign the complaint as the affiant with
firsthand knowledge of facts

C.

There was no distinct and palpable injury

D.

Everything was baseless hearsay by impeachable hostile witnesses

E.

The elements of the offense were not listed in the charging instrument as
Rule 3 requires

F.

Actual innocense [sic]

(Id.) Attached is a “Certificate for immediate execution of correction of void judgment Case #14417 from court coram non judice Circuit Court, Jackson Tennessee.” (Id. at 2.) Also attached are
three documents, each titled “Writ of Mandamus Order to correct void judgment,” which purport
to set aside the charges for resisting arrest, driving without a license and a registration violation. (Id.
at 3-5.)

2

It appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to challenge a criminal proceeding in the Madison
County Circuit Court in which he was charged and possibly convicted of resisting arrest, driving
without a license and violating the registration law. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Bryant found that
this document is frivolous. The Court also finds that the document fails to state any claim on which
relief may be granted. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff may intend the document as a habeas
petition, he has not alleged that he has exhausted his available state remedies.
The Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), the Court
CERTIFIES that an appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and DENIES leave to
appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must also pay the
entire $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3