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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
