Burchfield v. Alibaba Grp. Holding

• Decision Date: 17 May 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 1:22-cv-01023
• Parties: BRADLEY C. BURCHFIELD PLAINTIFF v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD.; JACK YUR MA, Founder, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; AMAZON, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; BLACKROCK, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; CASEY ZHAO, Alibaba Cloud; ERICA WANG, Employee/Salesperson Xichang New Material Limited; SWEETY YIN; DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; JOSEPH C. TSAI, Co-Founder, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; JONATHAN ZHAOXI LU, CEO and Director, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; MAGGIE WEI WU, CFO, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; DAVID ZHAIG, CEO, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; XICHANG NEW MATERIALS LTD.; TIMOTHY J. SHEA, Director, Drug Enforcement Agency; and JOHN DOE “JUAN DOE” DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

BRADLEY C. BURCHFIELD PLAINTIFF
v.
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD.; JACK YUR MA, Founder, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; AMAZON, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; BLACKROCK, 10% Investor, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; CASEY ZHAO, Alibaba Cloud; ERICA WANG, Employee/Salesperson Xichang New Material Limited; SWEETY YIN; DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; JOSEPH C. TSAI, Co-Founder, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; JONATHAN ZHAOXI LU, CEO and Director, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; MAGGIE WEI WU, CFO, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; DAVID ZHAIG, CEO, Alibaba Group Holding Limited; XICHANG NEW MATERIALS LTD.; TIMOTHY J. SHEA, Director, Drug Enforcement Agency; and JOHN DOE “JUAN DOE” DEFENDANTS

CIVIL No. 1:22-cv-01023

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division

May 17, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, Bradley C. Burchfield, (“Burchfield”) currently an inmate of the Randall L. Williams Correctional Facility of the Arkansas Division of Correction, filed this action pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., and various other federal statutes as well as state law claim. Burchfield proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. This case concerns Burchfield's purchase of rust inhibiter and acrylic nail adhesive containing isopropylbenzylamine

1

from the website www.alibaba.com.

The case is before the Court for preservice screening of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

I. BACKGROUND

Burchfield filed his initial Complaint on February 28, 2022. On March 23, 2022, Burchfield filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5). While an Amended Complaint usually supersedes the original complaint, it is clear that from Burchfield's references to allegations in the initial Complaint, he meant for the Amended Complaint to be a supplement to the initial Complaint. See e.g., Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 564 (8th Cir. 2007)(district court should have read the original and amended complaints together as plaintiff intended). Additionally, on April 6, 2022, Burchfield filed a Supplement (ECF No. 15).

Burchfield owns Burchfield Sales & Consulting, LLC, and Burchfield's Welding and Fabrication, LLC. (ECF No. 15 at 1). In March of 2020, Burchfield “made purchases from Alibaba Group Holding Limited's (“Alibaba's”) electronic platform (www.alibaba.com) for substances advertised as ‘rust inhibitors' to be used as weld-through etch primer in the course of his business.” Id. This substance was also marketed as “acrylic nail adhesive” which Burchfield purchased. Id.

Burchfield used the rust inhibiter as a “top-applicated primer” and found the product did not inhibit rust. (ECF No. 5 at 2). When he used the acrylic nail adhesive, “the nails fell off.” Id. Burchfield also used the substance on his welder and it “rusted the main armature and electrical coils . . . [and] will no longer strike an arc.” Id. Burchfield indicates he sustained

2

excessive business losses as a result of his use of the product. Id. Burchfield says he put the substance on the under carriage of his two vehicles resulting in weaking of the “aluminum on the transfer case leading to the failure of the Allison Transmission” in his 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 3500. Id. at 6.

Burchfield indicates he spent “upwards of $6, 000” on the product. (ECF No. 5 at 2). After research, Burchfield says he discovered the substance was a “by-product when pharmaceutical companies made methamphetamine.” Id. Burchfield states the product is sold by various entities. Id. He also indicates the Drug Enforcement Agency's (“DEA's”) website says the substance is “federally legal.” Id. Burchfield states he was arrested with some of the product in his possession and charged with possession of methamphetamine. Id. He indicates all charges except one were dismissed. Id.

Burchfield states that he also discovered that silencers, M-16 bolt carriers, firing pins, armored vehicles, and personnel carriers could be purchased on the website. (ECF No. 5 at 4). This led Burchfield to “believe that the Alibaba platform is in all reality a narcotics and illegal arms ‘criminal enterprise' which has also committed wire fraud 18 U.S.C. § 134[3] and mail fraud 18 U.S.C. § 134[1] by mislabeling the substances being paid for and the substances being shipped as they are shipped under the names calcium acetate, poly-vinyl alcohol, and acrylic nail resin.” Id. Burchfield alleges that “[a]t all times, each Defendant was materially involved in multiple acts herein constituting a ‘pattern of racketeering' [and] acts of terrorism as foreign narcotic kingpins.” Id.

In January of 2021, Burchfield filed a complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Burchfield v. Jones, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-06150. (ECF No. 1 at 1). After he served the complaint, Alibaba announced in February of 2021 that it would no longer sell isopropylbenzylamine on its

3

electronic platform after April 2021. Id. Burchfield further alleges Alibaba committed securities fraud and that its stock price fell in half after this announcement. Id. Burchfield alleges that investors JP Morgan Chase, Amazon, and Blackrock withdrew their investments. Id.

In December of 2021, while at the house of his fiancee, Burchfield alleges he received a death threat from an unknown Mexican referring to Casey Zhao (“Zhao”) who “operates an Alibaba website.^[1]” (ECF No. 1 at 1). Burchfield alleges this threat establishes a pattern on racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A), 1512 and 1513 “by tampering or retaliating against a witness or informant.” Id. Burchfield contends the threat of violence is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962. He further maintains the Defendants “have an ‘enterprise' established to sell narcotics and defraud the American public.” Id.

In the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5), Burchfield indicates that in addition to RICO he believes the Defendants' conduct violated the Alien Tort Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), the AntiTerrorism Act, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, 21 U.S.C. § 1901, the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018, and the Controlled Substances Act. Burchfield also asks to have the Defendants listed with the Office of Foreign Asset Control as a foreign narcotics kingpin pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2531, 2333-34. Finally, Burchfield asserts state law claims of theft under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-107, violations of the Online Marketplace Inform Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4119-101-05, and unjust enrichment. Id.

In his Supplement (ECF No. 15 at 1), Burchfield alleges the DEA's statement that isopropylbenzylamine is a federally legal substance “interferes with laws passed by the General

4

Assembly of Arkansas regarding methamphetamine as the two substances have the same chemical formula.” Burchfield states that the “pre-emptive theory of 21 U.S.C. § 903” and the Supremacy Clause create a conflict between the current drug laws in Arkansas and the statement on the DEA website which cannot consistently stand together. Id. Burchfield maintains the DEA created a public nuisance by allowing the other Defendants to “bypass the Controlled Substances Act” and sell isopropylbenzylamine. Id. at 1-2. Burchfield asserts that the “constitutionality of laws passed by the General Assembly of Arkansas and Congress can only be heard by the Supreme Court.” Id. at 1. Burchfield ask that the case be referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403 to the Supreme Court before dismissing the claims against the DEA. Id. at 2.

As relief, Burchfield seeks treble damages based on the threat to his life and the life of his fiancee (ECF No. 1 at 2). He seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $22, 550 for damage to the welder and truck and in the amount of $18, 000 for loss of business capital. (ECF No. 5 at 7). He seeks declaratory relief to have Defendants designated as foreign narcotics kingpins and to have their asserts frozen as well as the assets of third-party sellers on the Alibaba website and associated websites. Id. He seeks punitive damages in the amount of 500 billion dollars. Id. He also seeks witness protection for he and his fiancee.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather

5

than to vindicate a cognizable right. In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988); Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 464 (E.D. N.C. 1987). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94...