Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Stark

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland

February 15, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF
v.
BRADLEY STARK DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          David L. Bunning, United States District Judge.

         I. Introduction

         This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. # 11). In his petition, Stark seeks his unconditional release from custody, an Order vacating his conviction and sentence from the Northern District of Texas, and dismissal of the pending charges in this Court (id.). The United States has filed its response opposing the requested relief, arguing that it fails both procedurally and substantively (Doc. # 13). Defendant having now filed his reply (Doc. # 19), the petition is ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied in full.

         II. Factual and Procedural History

         A. Relevant Criminal Proceedings in the Northern District of Texas

         In 2008, Defendant was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on multiple counts of wire and securities fraud offenses. See United States v. Bradley C. Stark, Crim. No. 3:08-cr-258 (ND-TX at Dallas); [Id. at ¶ 1: Indictment].[1] On January 18, 2012, a jury found Defendant guilty of the charged offenses [id. at ¶ 185: jury verdict], and on October 9, 2012, Defendant was sentenced to 276 months imprisonment. [Id. at 251: Judgment]. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal on September 24, 2014. [Id. at ¶ 280]; see United States v. Stark, 582 Fed.Appx. 462 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2014).

         On February 2, 2016, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence. Bradley C. Stark v. United States, Civ. No. 3:16-cv-298 (ND-TX, filed Feb. 2, 2016); [Id. at ¶ 2: Motion]. On May 8, 2017, Defendant's motion was denied. [Id. at ¶ 25]. Defendant's appeal from that denial was dismissed on July 7, 2017, for want of prosecution. [Id. at ¶ 27].

         B. Relevant Civil Proceedings in the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere

         On August 14, 2014, Defendant filed a pro se civil action purporting to seek confirmation of an arbitration award which he styled “Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.” See Bradley Christopher Stark v. Eric Holder, et al., Crim.No. 3:14-cv-2920 (ND-TX). Just like he has in the habeas petition filed in this court, Defendant asserted that the criminal charges brought in United States v. Bradley C. Stark, Crim. No. 3:08-cr-258 (ND-TX) had been resolved by arbitration prior to the jury's verdict of guilty on January 18, 2012. Defendant based his assertion on the following facts -

         On December 14, 2009, Defendant made a “counter offer” to settle the criminal charges against him by serving the United States Attorney General with a “Conditional Acceptance for Value.” In that document, Defendant made numerous factual assertions that he individually styled as “Proof of Claim” and demanded that the government provide him with discovery and information responsive to his factual assertions. These assertions, essentially, alleged that Defendant was unlawfully arrested and charged by the United States government. Defendant asserted that, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the federal government was bound by the terms of document, including his demand that they respond to his factual assertions, and that its failure to timely respond would constitute its “acceptance” of the terms of the document.

         Defendant then obtained what he claims to be an “Administrative Judgment” from an “Administrative Hearing Officer.” Essentially, this “Administrative Judgment” provides that, because of its “default” (i.e. it's failure to respond to his counter offer), the United States was bound by the terms of Defendant's counter offer and, therefore, could not proceed to criminally prosecute him on the charges contained in the indictment in United States v. Bradley C. Stark, Crim. No. 3:08-cr-258 (ND-TX at Dallas, Judgment entered October 29, 2012). See Bradley Christopher Stark v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., Civ. No. 3:14-cv-2920 (ND-TX at Dallas, filed Aug. 14, 2014); [Id. at ¶ 3: Petition to Confirm Arbitration].

         On October 7, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing Defendant's complaint with prejudice. [Id. at ¶ 13: Judgment]. Defendant appealed. [Id. at ¶ 14: Notice of Appeal]. On September 29, 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Defendant's appeal, writing “APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.” [Id. at ¶ 24: Opinion of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals]; see Stark v. Lynch, 611 Fed.Appx. 239 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015).

         Undeterred, on February 5, 2015, Defendant, pro se, filed essentially the same complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See “Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award”, Bradley Christopher Stark v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., Civ. No. 1:15-cv-202 (District of Columbia); [Id. at 1: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award]. In his DC filing, Defendant argued that, based on the failure of the United States to respond to his “counter offer”, an enforceable agreement existed between him and the United States, whereby the United States could not lawfully prosecute him for wire and securities fraud in the Northern District of Texas and that any violation of the agreement was subject to arbitration. He argued that, notwithstanding this agreement, the United States elected to proceed with its prosecution in the Northern District of Texas and that his trial, conviction, and sentence constituted a violation of the arbitration agreement. Based on this violation of the alleged agreement, Defendant claimed he had obtained from an “arbitrator” and arbitration award directing that the criminal judgment against him was void and that he was entitled to $3, 296, 347, 823 in damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and other violations of the agreement. Defendant requested that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia enter an order directing that the arbitration award be enforced.

         In reviewing his petition, the D.C. district court noted that it conducted a check of public records and found that Defendant had filed a similar document seeking enforcement of the same arbitration agreement against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court summarily denied Defendant's petition finding “that the claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata” because the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.