Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/2732466/Riches-v-Karr-et-al-Document-No-5
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 15:40:39
Document Index: 799624738

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 636', 'art, 4']

Riches v. Karr et al - Document No. 5 | Statute Of Limitations (14 views)
Riches v. Karr et al - Document No. 5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing 3 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Jonathan Lee Riches and that this case be deemed a strike for purposes of the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Objections to R&R due by 10/15/2007. Signed by Judge James R. Marschewski on September 27, 2007. (mfr) 2:2007cv02103 Arkansas Western District Court
enregistrerEnregistrer Riches v. Karr et al - Document No. 5 pour plus tard
Freeman v. Lebedovych - Document No. 52
Cara Palladino v. Governor of Pennsylvania, 3rd Cir. (2014)
Republic v Acebedo
Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al - Document No. 20
TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. v. ALACRAN CONTRACTING, LLC et al Docket
Marc Antwain Muhammad v. Vincent Cappellini, 3rd Cir. (2014)
Florrie A. Padgett v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 958 F.2d 368, 4th Cir. (1992)
Charles Talbert v. Corizon Medical Contractor, 3rd Cir. (2015)
47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 670, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 349 General Trading Incorporated, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. v. Yale Materials Handling Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Jose M. Baeza, Sr., Counterclaim Jose M. Baeza, Jr., Counterclaim General Trading Incorporated, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant v. Yale Materials Handling Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellee, Jose M. Baeza, Sr., Counterclaim Jose M. Baeza, Jr., Counterclaim General Trading Incorporated, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee v. Yale Materials Handling Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Garnishor- Appellant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Gonzalez Trading, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Jose M. Jose Manuel Baeza, Sr., Jose M. Baeza, Jr., Javier Baeza, Counterclaim-Defendants- Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Power Depot, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Michele M. Baeza, Involuntary Supplemental Encarnacion Gonzalez, In
United States v. Collins, 4th Cir. (1999)
Tableau Software, Inc. v. Anyaspect KFT. - Document No. 10
William Shanklin v. Kenneth Seals, 4th Cir. (2012)
Michael Romero v. George Hayman, 3rd Cir. (2012)
Davis v. Bumgarner, 4th Cir. (1999)
Update on Criminal Procedure 1 - Justice Hilarion Aquino
United States v. Stilley, 4th Cir. (1997)
Flores v. Montemayor (Powers #10).docx
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. - Document No. 119
Riches v. Karr et al Doc.
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 4
JONATHAN LEE RICHES PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 07- 2103
JOHN MARK KARR, a/k/a
“The Father;” ANDREA YATES,
a/k/a “The Mother;” DYLAN KLEBOLD,
a/k/a “The Son;” SEUNG-HUI CHO,
a/k/a “Foreign Exchange Student;”
COUSIN IT, a/k/a “The Cousin;” and
CUJO, a/k/a “Family Pet” DEFENDANTS
Jonathan Lee Riches, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in Salters, South
Carolina, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. The case is before the undersigned for a determination of whether service of
process should issue.
Riches alleges the defendants have violated his civil rights, infringed copyrights, and
committed crimes against him including child abuse, assault and battery, identity theft, kidnaping,
and torture. Riches alleges, among other things, that he was kidnaped in December of 1997 and
sent to a “Lord of the Flies torture camp deep in the Ozarks.”
In August and September of 2007, Riches filed thirty-three cases in various courts throughout the United States.
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 2 of 4
In 1998, Riches maintains he was home schooled by defendants in a dungeon, forced to
learn Korean, construct missiles, and play with My Little Pony dolls. Riches indicates he was baby
sat by Andrea Yates, taught identity theft by Cousin Itt, and read George Orwell literature.
In 1999, Riches alleges Klebold made him sew and stitch his trench coat. Riches indicates
he was fed after midnight with Gremlins and did not get to go to Woodstock.
In 2007, Riches alleges he was forced to marry a male inmate. He alleges he was forced
to watch Addams Family reruns and a fluorescent bulb was placed on him to attract mosquitos. He
also alleges that the doctors at the prison did angel of death experiments on him.
As relief, Riches seeks $50 million dollars, the return of all copy righted material related
to him, and a temporary restraining order forbidding the defendants from having any contact with
This case is subject to dismissal. First, w e note it appears Riches has pulled the names of
the defendants from a variety of sources including the news, television, and literature.
Defendants appear to have no actual connection with Riches or with Arkansas. Two of the
defendants are fictional characters. Two other defendants are deceased.
John Mark Karr, made a confession, which the prosecutors did not believe, in connection
with the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark_Karr (accessed September 25, 2007). Andrea Yates
was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the June 20, 2001, killing of her five young children
in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (accessed September 25, 2007). Dylan
Klebold was one of two gunmen involved in the Columbine High School massacre on April 20,
1999, in Columbine, Colorado, and committed suicide after the killings.
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 3 of 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold (accessed September 25, 2007).
Seung-Hui Cho was a student at Virginia Tech who committed the mass murder on April 16,
2007, in Blacksburg, Virginia, and committed suicide after the killings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho (accessed September 25, 2007). Cousin Itt was a
member of a fictional family in a television series the Addams Family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_Itt (accessed September 25, 2007). Cujo is the title of a
horror novel written by Stephen King. In the novel Cujo is a rabid St. Bernard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cujo (accessed September 25, 2007).
Second, the factual allegations of the complaint are irrational, incomprehensible, and
clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340
(1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338
(1989)(clearly baseless allegations are those that are fantastic, fanciful, or delusional.).
Third, any claims stemming from events occurring prior to September of 2004 are barred
by the statute of limitations. See e.g., 17 U.S.C. 507(b)(three year statute of limitation applicable
to civil actions to infringement actions under the Copyright Act); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736,
739 (8th Cir. 2001)(in Arkansas three year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases).
Fourth, to the extent Riches complains “the defendants” have engaged in criminal
conduct by torturing him, kidnaping him, conducting experiments on him, or engaging in various
other actions, we note that private citizens have no right to institute criminal prosecution. See
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65, 106 S. Ct. 1697, 90 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1986); In re
Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (private party lacks judicially cognizable
interest in prosecution of another person); Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 494 (4th Cir. 1990);
Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989).
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 4 of 4
I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed on the grounds the claims asserted are
frivolous, are barred by the statute of limitations, and fail to state claims upon which relief can be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action, or any portion thereof, may be
dismissed on such grounds at any time). I also recommend that this case be deemed a strike for
purposes of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Riches has ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file
written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections
may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Riches is reminded that
objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
DATED this 27th day of September 2007.
Documents similaires à Riches v. Karr et al - Document No. 5
Aadam Naveed Gandamra
Hunter v. Filip, 3rd Cir. (2013)
Woodard v. Gittens, 1st Cir. (1994)
Michael Forrest v., 3rd Cir. (2010)
United States v. Stewart, 4th Cir. (2007)
Dykstra v. DLP Media Group, LLC, Et Al.
United States v. Arthur Jackson, 3rd Cir. (2012)
United States v. Timothy N. Homrighausen, 11th Cir. (2010)
Richmond Homes Mgmt v. Raintree Inc, 4th Cir. (1996)
2011.03.23 Scheduling Memorandum
Act 149 - Pesticides Act 1974.pdf
Acid Attack Victim compensation wr 12906p
Larkin Titration Lab
jmendez2014
Legally Blonde Sides
Bakshi Amrik Singh v. UOI
People Who Stalk People - Bruce MacFarlane
Pax Centurion - January/February 2008
Bisera1
Almeda vs Perez
Flash and Rat Charges
13 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1521, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,919 Odessa Carrion v. Yeshiva University, 535 F.2d 722, 2d Cir. (1976)
Kasturilal_Ralia_Ram_Jain_vs_The_State_Of_Uttar_Pradesh_on_29_September,_1964