Askins v. Piranian

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACKERY J. ASKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW PIRANIAN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1002-D
ORDER
Plaintiff, Zackery J. Askins, a pro se military prisoner, brought this action against
Defendant, Matthew Piranian.1 Currently, Plaintiff appears to be incarcerated at the
Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. See Doc. No.
1-1.
The Court screens Plaintiff’s “Complaint in Replevin” [Doc. No. 1], pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In relevant part, the statute provides:
(a) 	Screening
The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil 	action 	in 	which 	a 	prisoner 	seeks 	redress 	from 	a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.
(b) 	Grounds for Dismissal
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the 	complaint, 	or 	any 	portion 	of 	the 	complaint, 	if 	the
complaint—
1 To date, Plaintiff has lodged five other lawsuits in this Court. See Case No. CIV-25-753-PRW
(Askins v. Graves); Case No. CIV-25-759-JD (Askins v. Hartson, et al.) (dismissed); Case No.
CIV-25-1049-SLP (Askins v. GEICO); Case No. CIV-25-1159-JD (Askins v. United States); and
Case No. CIV-25-1302-PRW (Askins v. Heck).
Case 5:25-cv-01002-D Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
(1) 	is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) 	seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
In his “Complaint in Replevin” [Doc. No. 1], Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was
his commanding officer when he was stationed at Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma. Plaintiff
alleges that—while Defendant was Plaintiff’s commanding officer—Defendant unlawfully
entered, burglarized, vandalized, damaged, and removed property from Plaintiff’s home.
[Doc. No. 1, at 1]. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant “then had the [Plaintiff]
incarcerated, knowing that the Plaintiff would not be home and could not stop the action
of the Defendant.” Id. Defendant allegedly “used his military authority to order the Plaintiff
not to contact civilian law enforcement” or civilian counsel. Id. Plaintiff claims that
Defendant forged Plaintiff’s signature and “claim[ed] falsely to the Plaintiff’s landlord that
he was a military law enforcement officer, and had a legal military warrant to enter the
Plaintiff’s home.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant withheld Plaintiff’s
medications. Id.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims that Defendant is liable to him in the
amount of $1,469,650.00. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks the return of all property from
Plaintiff’s home located at 421 E. Lake Road in Lawton, Oklahoma. Id. Plaintiff also seeks
$500,000.00 in punitive damages, and an additional $500,000.00 for Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendant withheld Plaintiff’s medications. Id.
Case 5:25-cv-01002-D Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Even if the Court construed Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting a claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. (FTCA), the United States is the only
proper defendant in a FTCA action. See Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 n.4 (10th
Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Matthew Piranian will be
dismissed. See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he district
court correctly dismissed Smith’s FTCA claims against every defendant except the United
States on the ground that those defendants were not proper parties.”). 2 For these reasons,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint has failed to state a claim, and further, that
amendment would be futile. Therefore, the Court sua sponte dismisses this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice, but without leave to amend. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of January, 2026.
2 The Court further notes that Plaintiff has since filed a FTCA action, naming the United States as
the sole defendant, which appears to encompass the conduct alleged in this action and Plaintiff’s
various other actions pending in this district. See Askins v. United States, Case No. CIV-25-1159-
JD. Accordingly, were the Court to permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to substitute the United
States as the proper defendant, the amended complaint would be cumulative of Plaintiff’s pending
FTCA action against the United States.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01002-D Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3