Reedy et al v. United States Inc. et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/25/17. (sas)

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT ROANOKE, VA
FILEO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
'J

REGAN DWAYNE REEDY and
SUSAN ANNETTE REEDY,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)

MAY 2 5 2017

B~~ qi;!;¥-~CLE~
~~;;----

Civil Action No. 7:17CV226
MEMORANDUM OPINlON

)

~

RICK MOUNTCASTLE,
RANDY CARGILL, and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,·
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

Hon. Glen E. Conrad
Chief United States District Judge

Regan Dwayne Reedy and Susan Annette Reedy, proceeding pro se, filed this action
against Rick Mountcastle, acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, and
Randy Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Virginia. Although
plaintiffs' complaint is not completely clear, plaintiffs appear to be alleging that they are entitled
'

to immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., and that defendants failed to properly take their oaths of office, and
therefore, do not have the authority to prosecute plaintiffs in a criminal matter currently pending
before this court. The plaintiffs seemingly request certain funds returned to theni and that the
criminal proceeding against them be dismissed. For the reasons stated, the court will dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint.
Discussion

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain a
"short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). Although the court is required to liberally construe prose complaints, the court need

not advocate for the pro se plaintiff or ignore an obvious failure to allege facts giving rise to a
plausible claim for relief. See Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Lee v. Johnson, 793 F.
Supp. 2d 798, 801 (W.D. Va. 2011). "Even when a plaintiff has paid the full filing fee, the
district court retains the discretion to dismiss the claims sua sponte." Berry v. Gorman, No.
7:12CV500, 2012 WL 5941488, at-*1 (W.d. Va. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing United Auto Workers v.
Gaston Festivals, Inc., 43 F.3d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir. 1995)). Additionally, a district court has the
authority to sua sponte dismiss an action if it is factually or legally frivolous. See Fitzgerald v.
First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000); Rosser-El v.
United States, No. AW-02-293, 2002 WL 32361842 (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2002), affd, 50 F. App'x
111, 2002 WL 31476925 (4th Cir. Nov. 6, 2002). The court conchides that the plaintiffs' claims
fail to allege a plausible claim for relief and are frivolous. Accordingly, the court will dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint.
Conclusion ·

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' complaint will be dismissed. The Clerk is
directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to the plaintiffs
and all counsel of record and to return the filing fee to plaintiffs. The Clerk is further directed to
strike this case from the court's active docket.
"1>4
DATED: This ~ day of May, 2017.
Chief United States District Judge

2