United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
N. STIVERS, JUDGE.
Jason Dean Borden, a federal pretrial detainee currently
incarcerated in the Grayson County Detention Center (GCDC),
initiated this action by filing a pro se
“Lawsuit pursant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) an 28
U.S.C. § 2675(A)” (DN 1). Thereafter, Plaintiff
filed an amendment (DN 7) to the complaint. This matter is
before the Court on initial review of the complaint and its
amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will dismiss the action.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
complaint (DN 1), Plaintiff indicates that he brings suit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b) and 2675(A)
“against the United States of America concerning
threats of ‘Wrongful Death' as ‘Personal
Injures' suffered on December 28th 2015 in Federal
Custody at GCDC[.]” He continues as follows:
Borden hereby brings this lawsuit an so deems the records
Administrative Exhaustion, that based upon the actions, an/or
in action, an/or Failure to Respond to Tort claims sent to
the United States District Court, Western District of
Kentucky an also sent the Sixth Circuit Court due to
violations of the District Courts Orders to
“Stricken” “Preclude” any [illegible]
all pro se movings by Plaintiff Borden.
Borden here by entered Formal Lawsuit concerning his injuries
suffered on December 28th 2015 due to Federal laws an
Statutes “criminal acts” violated by Federal
Employees ATF Agent David Hayse an U.S. Assistant Attorney Jo
Ellen Lawless, an/or all concerning 1:15MJ-00022 an/or
criminal Docket record for 1:15-CR-0004-GNS-1 and these
matters here-in proving Borden is currently in fear for his
life due to “Wrongful Death” an the furtherance
of Personal Injury caused by these same Federal Employees AKA
The United States of America . . . .
Wherefore the Plaintiff prays he be granted to proceed or
suing the United States of America an all other relief he is
entitled too by Federal Tort, State Tort, an U.S.C. Laws and
Statutes of protection “Federal Witness
Protections” and/or all relief.
complaint, Plaintiff attaches 90 pages of exhibits,
consisting primarily of medical records, newspaper articles,
various filings captioned for his criminal action
(1:15-CR-00004-GNS), and letters from Nancy Sue Douglas,
Plaintiff's mother. Although not so specified in the
complaint, the attachments indicate that Plaintiff claims
that Defendants Lawless and Hayse made incorrect statements
to a newspaper following a February 2015 post-arrest
interview between Plaintiff and law enforcement and that
because of those incorrect newspaper statements, Plaintiff
ultimately was assaulted by inmates at GCDC on December 28,
2015, resulting in right leg injuries, i.e.,
“a shattered fibula, tibia, foot [and] toes
amendment (DN 7), Plaintiff seeks to modify his action
“with further evidence of fraud, Subterfuge as detailed
in Roy Olmstead . . . vs. United States of America[.]”
To the amendment, he attaches the caption of Olmstead v.
United States of America, 72 L.Ed. 944. In the
amendment, Plaintiff states as follows:
[Borden] having detailed the illegal actions of Jo Lawless,
an David Hayse, prays that by this leave to Modify the
District Court accepts the summarized original
“Olmstead Act: violations of Jo Ellen Lawless, ATF
Agent David Hayse along with the conspired actions of All
Federal Employees instructed by Jo Ellen Lawless or given
instructions, supervision, Judicial Review, for David Hayse,
an Jo Ellen Lawless.
Borden, via Federal Lawsuit has detailed th combined illegal
actions of the co-defendants as agents there-of, that
occurred prior to the March 11, 2015 indictment of Borden.
Occurring afterward are continued illegal acts noted in Law
suit, with Bordens life in Danger of Wrongful Death, an his
injuries detailed in Medical records.
Borden hereby adds the Court record, Supreme Court decisions
concerning the Olmstead Act, giving copies detailed as; If
fraud, subterfuge, trespass, or theft is perpetrated by
government officials, or if a government official
participates directly or indirectly therein, the evidence
thus secured is not admissible for the reason that it was
secured in a manner which violates the provisions of the 4th
an 5th Amendments to the constitution of the United States as
committed directly by the ...