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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
