Goodrich v. Richardson

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous, 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted for purpose of dismissing this action. Signed by District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 12/9/2011. Mailed to pro se party Lonnie Goodrich by regular mail (bt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LONNIE GOODRICH,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.

11-3206-RDR

SHELTON RICHARDSON,
Warden,
Respondent.
O R D E R
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 by an inmate of the Leavenworth Detention Center,
Leavenworth, Kansas. Having examined the materials filed, the court
finds as follows.

FILING FEE
The statutory filing fee for this action is $5.00.

Petitioner

has filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)(Doc. 2).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 a prisoner seeking to bring an action IFP is
required to submit an affidavit, which Mr. Goodrich has done.
However, it also requires the prisoner to submit a “certified copy
of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)
for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing” of the action “obtained from the appropriate official of
each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.”
1915(a)(2).

28 U.S.C. §

Normally, this action would not proceed until Mr.

Goodrich obtained and submitted the financial information required
by federal law.

However, because the court finds that this action

must be dismissed, it instead provisionally grants petitioner leave
to proceed IFP for the sole purpose of dismissing this action.

SCREENING
Mr. Goodrich is confined at the LDC due to a federal charge
currently pending against him in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.
the following.1

In his Petition, he alleges

He was “charged by secret indictment” with a single

count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substance.

There has

been no judgment or sentencing on the federal charge.

He claims

that he was denied constitutional rights “at the moot trial,” such
as the right to subpoena witnesses and documents on his behalf.

He

also suggests that a proper complaint has not been filed against him
and that the Missouri court lacks jurisdiction to charge him with
violating federal statutes.2

He seeks a writ of habeas corpus

directed to Warden Richardson “to inquire into the restraint” of his
person.

He also seeks his immediate release, “complete discharge

from custody,” expungement of “this entire matter,” and “complete
restitution.”3
The court takes judicial notice of U.S. v. Goodrich, Case No.
4:09-cr-00353-ODS-10, which indicates the following.

Mr. Goodrich

1
Petitioner has submitted voluminous exhibits attached to his Petition
and to a “letter in support” docketed as a Supplement (Doc. 3). These exhibits
consist mainly of documents from his criminal case, many of which refute rather
than support his claims.
2
Mr. Goodrich’s challenge to the Missouri federal court’s jurisdiction
appears to be based upon an utterly frivolous contention that he is “a dejure
sovereign State Citizen of one of the several states of the republic (Missouri)”
and not a United States citizen, with references to the expatriation statue (sic),
immunities of foreign states, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the Bible.
Petition (Doc. 1) at 6, 12.
Any claim of cruel and unusual conditions during Mr.Goodrich’s pretrial
confinement must be litigated by filing a civil complaint in the appropriate state
or federal court against the person or persons that caused the alleged conditions.
3

To the extent Mr. Goodrich may be seeking money damages, this is again
the wrong jurisdiction. In any event, such a claim is premature. Money damages
claims based upon illegal confinement are barred unless and until the prisoner has
managed to overturn his conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
Furthermore, judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune to suit for money
damages for acts taken within their official capacities.

2

is the “10th named defendant” in a 12-defendant case, in which all
defendants were charged with a Class A conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base.

All other co-defendants have entered guilty pleas.

Mr. Goodrich was initially released on bond pending trial, but then
“his whereabouts were unknown from early January until he was
arrested on or about March 1, 2011.”

Supplement (Doc. 3) at 14.

Petitioner complains of delays in his pending criminal case, but
acknowledges they have related to “various competency evaluations.”4
The record shows that the court ordered Mr. Goodrich to undergo a
psychological exam to determine if he was mentally incompetent to
understand the proceedings and assist in his defense on May 18, 2011
(Doc. 295), and again on August 31, 2011 (Doc. 351).

Two competency

hearings have been conducted (Doc. 346, 375), and Mr. Goodrich was
recently found by the magistrate to be competent to proceed.

The

matter is currently awaiting ruling upon the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendations.

It thus plainly appears from the record that Mr.

Goodrich has been charged with a federal offense in the Western
District of Missouri, that criminal proceedings are progressing, and
that he is being detained at the LDC awaiting trial on that charge

4

Petitioner’s claim of denial of speedy trial must be raised in the
trial court and on direct appeal. The court notes that the record in his criminal
case indicates several continuances have been granted upon motions by his three
different counsel, a couple for preparation time after he insisted upon changing
counsel. His case was also continued when he was unavailable to assist counsel
in preparing for trial. Mr. Goodrich’s third attorney filed the latest motion to
continue trial until the docket commencing March 19, 2012, in which she stated
that Goodrich consented to the continuance and waived his right under the Speedy
Trial Act (Doc. 362). That motion was heard and defendant was found to have no
objections (Doc. 366). The requested continuance was granted on October 19, 2011
(Doc. 369).
Defendant’s second counsel filed a motion in which he ominously stated, “the
defendant has failed to grasp the strength of the government’s evidence in this
case or the severe consequences - including a significant possibility of spending
the rest of his life in prison - that a loss at trial could entail.” He had
earlier noted that some co-defendants have agreed to testify against Mr. Goodrich
(Doc. 321 at 2). Mr. Goodrich would be well-advised to carefully consider these
statements by professional legal counsel.

3

in Missouri, which is on the March 2010 docket.
To the extent that Mr. Goodrich is attempting to challenge any
findings of the Western District of Missouri court during criminal
proceedings, he must first present any such claims to the trial
court and thereafter on direct appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

If he fails to properly raise all his claims in the trial

court, he risks forfeiting any right to have those claims heard on
direct

appeal.

Petitioner’s

post-appeal

remedy

is

by

motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which may only be filed in the
sentencing court. This court has no jurisdiction to review criminal
proceedings
district.

conducted

by

a

federal

court

in

another

judicial

The fact that Mr. Goodrich is confined within this

judicial district does not give this court jurisdiction over his
challenges.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that this action is
frivolous and states no ground for relief in this district.

The

court further finds that no purpose would be served by allowing
petitioner the opportunity to amend or otherwise respond.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is provisionally granted for the
sole purpose of dismissing this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed and all
relief is denied, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction and as
frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court certifies that any appeal
from this Order is not taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED:

This 9th day of December, 2011, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge

5