Chutzpah: After Criminal Prosecution Defendant Sues USA
Post 5164
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g_QAZY-d and at https://lnkd.in/gbF7vMxG and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Dr. Segun Patrick Adeoye, a medical doctor, filed a lawsuit against the United States of America, seeking damages for alleged violations during his criminal prosecution. He was acquitted by a jury but claims to have suffered significant harm, including financial losses, damage to his professional reputation, and personal distress.
In Dr. Segun Patrick Adeoye v. The United States Of America, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-83, United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division (July 23, 2025) the USDC dismissed Adeoye’s suit.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Dr. Adeoye was indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. The indictment alleged that he and his co-conspirators obtained at least seventeen million dollars through various fraudulent schemes. Despite being acquitted, Dr. Adeoye claims that his prosecution caused him ongoing harm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dr. Adeoye’s complaint asserts three causes of action:
1. Violation of Due Process: Adeoye claims his due process rights were violated due to wrongful detention, lack of legal safeguards, and delays in his trial.
2. Violation of the Speedy Trial Act: Adeoye alleges unnecessary procedural delays caused by the government’s failure to advance the case.
3. Negligence: Adeoye asserts that the government was negligent in investigating the charges, delaying access to legal counsel, and not advancing the case in a reasonable time frame.
ANALYSIS
The court’s analysis focused on the government’s motion to dismiss, arguing that Dr. Adeoye’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The court agreed with the government, stating that the United States had not consented to being sued for the type of constitutional tort claims Dr. Adeoye seeks. The court also found that Dr. Adeoye’s claims under the Speedy Trial Act and negligence are not cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) due to lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The Court may consider the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint. The Court must then determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
The Government argues that Rule 12(b)(1) bars Plaintiff’s claims. That is because, according to the Government, each of Plaintiff’s claims are barred under sovereign immunity. Before the Court can proceed any further, it must ensure that sovereign immunity does not prevent it from presiding over the case.
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to assert a claim under the civil rights statutes and the United States has not consented to suits for such claims, Plaintiff’s claim here is barred by sovereign immunity.
Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s Complaint is also deficient because it mentioned no individual connected to the conduct complained of at all.
Plaintiff’s Speedy Trial Act Claim
The only remedy for a violation of the STA is dismissal of an indictment. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present any theory of recovery under the STA that would allow the Court to engage with it any further. Plaintiff has not carried his burden here. He has not even attempted to demonstrate that his STA cause of action is in exact compliance with the terms of a statute under which the sovereign has consented to be sued. Thus, Plaintiff’s STA claim must be dismissed.
Even if sovereign immunity did not apply, the Court would nonetheless dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s Complaint is wholly deficient and borders on frivolous.
CONCLUSION
The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Dr. Adeoye’s § 1983 and Speedy Trial Act claims with prejudice and his FTCA claim without prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
Health insurance fraud is a serious crime. Dr. Adeoye was indicted as part of a multi-million dollar fraud scheme. The case went to trial and Dr. Adeoye was acquitted because the USA failed to convince the jury of his crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. Adeoye sued the government without first presenting the claim and without complying with the tort claims act resulting in the government’s motion to dismiss the suit based on sovereign immunity.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
