![]() 2015), the honorable court held that “ny factual ambiguities are to be resolved squarely in the plaintiff’s favor.”ĭefendants argue that Plaintiff improperly served the Defendants and totally failed to effect service on others. Office of Alcohol & Tobacco Control of Louisiana Dep’t of Revenue, No. ![]() It is also worth noting that the Court may consider declarations in resolving Rule 12(b)(5) motions. Also, it has been held that “When a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving adequate service.” Dickerson v. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), “hen service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of proving its validity or good cause for failure to effect timely service.” Sys. PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SERVED THE DEFENDANTS.Services, Briggs Therapeutic CDC, Briggs Intensive Youth Development Services and Exceptional Minds for years 2012-2015. See Preliminary Hearing Transcript of Kimberly Shoals & AAG Testimony Da v 1 Attached Exhibit “A”. Shoals, who was the only medical provider on the date and time of the alleged offenses charged by the State. On or about March 28, 2017, the State of Oklahoma, by and through illegal conduct of staff of the Attorney General’s office, moved to the District Court of Oklahoma County through Magistrate Larry Shaw, to dismiss all counts against Ms. The allegations mentioned above lacked evidence. The said charge was brought by information from Kimberly Shoals. Shoal- to having conspired to commit several counts of Medicaid fraud. On or about the 20th day of June 2016, the State of Oklahoma, by and through unconstitutional actions of the staff of the Attorney General’s office, charged Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s Wife- a former employee of Ms. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Wife relied on Kimberly Shoals. At this time, Plaintiff’s Wife reasonably believed that all relevant protocols were being adhered to during the transition period. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s Wife’s business was terminated.Ĭonsequential to the termination, Plaintiff’s Wife transitioned her clients to Options Unlimited, a company owned by Kimberly Shoals. Per 42 CFR 431.107, before any action is taken against Plaintiff, Plaintiff needs to keep records and pursuant 74 Oklahoma statute 8541, OHCA and the Oklahoma State auditor and the inspector will have the right to examine the provider’s books. These investigations did not follow due process guidelines in regard Medicaid fraud. ![]() OHCA, instead of investigating the wrongdoers, began an investigation into Plaintiff. The said investigation was based on complaints from disgruntled employees involving misdeeds committed by those same employees. Notably, the immunity of State actors from a suit has long been held not to extend to actions against the state official for damages arising out of the willfulness, negligent disregard of state law.ĭuring the end of 2012, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) began an investigation into Plaintiff’s Wife’s business (Briggs) unbeknown to Plaintiff. The court may open the doors for relief against government officials who act under the color of law to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. The Defendants violating Plaintiff’s due process rights, and failed to apply proper procedure, in conducting investigations for Plaintiff’s alleged offense. The Plaintiff states that the actions by the Defendants are unconstitutional and that the Plaintiff has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm and request the Court to address Plaintiff’s case in the interest of justice.įor the past five years, the Defendant have subjected the Plaintiff to a criminal trial in the State court. Notably, Plaintiff’s case involves the violation of Federal laws, inter alia, Tile and (3). The plaintiff invokes this Court’s Federal Question Jurisdiction pursuant to. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTĬOMES NOW Plaintiff, DARRICK EDWARD WRENN, Pro-se, hereby files this Motion to request this Honorable Court to order the disclosure of the Discovery Requests mentioned herein against Defendants, pursuant to Rule 6, and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DARRICK EDWARD WRENN,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |