FILED
FEB - 3 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON ClERK
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. DlSlRICT COURT'
ALLEN WOLFSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09 0194
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the
complaint.
In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a civil fraud action against
plaintiff s son, David Wolfson, and others, who were charged "with violating the federal
securities laws by fraudulently raising funds from investors." Sec. & Exch. Comm 'n v. Wolfson,
No. 2:03CV914 TS, 2008 WL 893002, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 28, 2008), aff'd sub nom. In re Sec.
& Exch. Comm 'n, No. 08-4073, 2008 WL 4566384 (10th Cir. Oct. 08, 2008), petition for cert.
filed, (U.S. Nov. 28, 2008) (No. 08-7583). "A receiver was appointed and given broad powers to
preserve, take control of, and liquidate the defendants' property for the benefit ofthe defrauded
investors." Id. Plaintiff was not a party to this SEC action. CompI. at 3. David Wolfson
"agreed to settle with the SEC," and "[p Jart of the settlement agreement was that David Wolfson
would disgorge all of his interest in the assets listed in the settlement agreement." Id. According
to plaintiff, assets belonging to him, not to David Wolfson, were among the assets over which the
1
receiver took control. Compi. at 3. Rather, plaintiff purported only to grant his son power of
attorney "in order to manage plaintiffs assets while he was in prison in New York." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his "Fifth Amendment Right To Due Process as
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America," presumably by depriving him of
property without compensation. Compi. at 3.1. He demands compensation "of 160 million
dollars or as much as one billion dollars or the return of all his properties ... plus court costs,
legal fees and punitive damages." Id. at 4.
The Court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs success turns on his ability to prove that he owned assets
included in the receivership. However, "[t]he district judge in the underlying SEC enforcement
action, after analyzing Plaintiffs claim and reviewing the evidence in the record, determined that
the assets at issue were properly included in the receivership because they were assets under the
control and ownership of David Wolfson," who in tum used those assets "as a conduit for money
stolen from investors." Wolfton v. United States, Nos. []2:06-CV-421, 2:06-CV-422, 2:06-CV-
435, 2:06-CV-966, 2:06-CV-994, 2:07-CV-219, 2008 WL 4919262, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 17,
2008) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs "allegations concerning the purported improper seizure and
sale of the Assets in the SEC Action do not plausibly support legal claims for relief." Id.
(citations and internal punctuation omitted).
The issue of plaintiffs ownership of the assets included in the receivership has been
resolved, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of the issue in
this court. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436,443-44 (1970); Yamaha Corp. ofAm. v. United
States, 961 F.2d 245,254 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1078 (1993).
2
An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued separately on this same date.
3