Keith Lee Wright v. USA
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT and JUDGMENT in favor of USA against Keith Lee Wright. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 10/20/2014. (LH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
KEITH LEE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RANDOLPH "RANDY" 1. SEILER,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
crv
14-3014-RAL
OPINION AND ORDER
SCREENING AND
DISMISSING COtvIPLAINT
I. Facts
PraintiffKeith Lee Wright (Wright) filed a pro se action entitled "Third Party Complaint"
against Defendant Randolph "Randy" 1. Seiler (Seiler). Wright is in the custody of the United
States Bureau ofPrisons serving a life prison sentence. U.S. v. Wright, CR 06-30026, Docs. 86,
94. Seiler was the Assistant United States Attorney who handled the prosecution ofWright. The
gravamen of Wright's claims in his Complaint are that Seiler committed "a Treaty Violation and
Illegal Incarceration, Breach of Fiduciary Duty [and] Fraud" in connection with Wright's
conviction. Doc. 1. Wright seeks $6.5 million in damages from Seiler. Doc. 1.
Wright was convicted and sentenced in CR 06-30026. The Court takes judicial notice
of the filings in that case. Such matters may be judicially noticed because they are "generally
known" within this Court's jurisdiction and "can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201.
In United States v. Wright, CR 06-30026, Wright was charged in an indictment and
superseding indictment with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2). United
States v. Wright, CR 06-30026, at Doc. 43. Seiler was the Assistant United States Attorney who
prosecuted the case. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier conducted a jury trial, resulting in a guilty
verdict on seven counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Id. at Doc. 86. In early June of
2007 , Judge Schreier sentenced Wright to a term of life on each of the counts, to run
concurrently. Id. at Doc. 94. Wright filed two notices of appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Id. at Docs. 96, 107.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered various
claims that Wright made and affirmed the conviction and sentence. Id. at Docs . 110, 112.
Among Wright's claims on appeal were assertions that the Govenunent failed to comply with the
Jencks Act, which claim the Eighth Circuit rejected. Id. at Docs. 110, 112. Wright petitioned
the Eighth Circuit for rehearing en banc, which petition was denied. Id. at Doc. 114. Wright
petitioned the Supreme Court ofthe United States for writ ofcertiorari , which the Supreme Court
denied . Id. at Docs. 119, 123.
Wright in 2009 then filed a post-conviction challenge in the district court to his
conviction. Id. at Doc. 122. That claim included a challenge to federal criminal jurisdiction over
him and claims of prosecutoria1 misconduct and misrepresentation. Id. at Doc. 122. Judge
Schreier notified Wright that she would characterize the pleading as a claim for relief under 28
U.S.c. § 2255. Id . at Doc. 124. Judge Schreier notified Wright of the ramifications that this
characterization of the pleading would have on subsequent pleadings, and directed Wright to
withdraw or amend his motion to include all possible claims under § 2255. Id. Wright did not
amend or withdraw his motion.
Wright's § 2255 case proceeded as CIV 09-3017. This Court takes judicial notice of the
filings in that case as well under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Judge Schreier
assigned the § 2255 case to United States Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy for a report and
recommendation. Magistrate Judge Duffy issued her initial Report and Recommendation in
October of 2009.
Wright v. United States, CIV 09-3017, Doc. 3.
2
The Report and
Recommendation included an analysis of why Wright's claim that there was a lack of federal
criminal jurisdiction over him failed and why claims of prosecutorial misconduct and
misrepresentation likewise failed. The Report and Recommendation recommended denial of
Wright's § 2255 claim.
Id. Wright filed a number of objections to that Report and
Recommendation, prompting Magistrate Judge Duffy to complete another Report and
Recommendation in April of 2010. Doc. 26. Id.
Judge Schreier adopted the Report and
Recommendation, dismissed Wright's § 2255 case, and refused to issue a certificate of
appealability. Id. at Doc. 27.
Wright, in 2011, then sued Judge Schreier, Magistrate Judge Duffy, the United States
Attorney for the District of South Dakota, and many others in an action challenging federal
criminal jurisdiction over him and invoking the bad men clause ofthe Treaty of Fort Laramie of
1868. Wright v. United States, Civ. 11-3032, Doc. 1. Wright named as Defendants the four
federal judges who were involved in his previous cases, the current United States Attorney for
the District of South Dakota, and an assistant United States Attorney who was involved in his
prior cases, as well as a special agent ofthe Federal Bureau ofInvestigation and the United States
Marshal Service. Id. at Doc. 1. Because Wright sued Judge Schreier and other judges, the
undersigned was assigned to the case. Through an Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed
Wright's complaint as a successive § 2255 habeas claim. Id. at Doc. 6. This Court also discussed
why many of Wright's claims were barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and why
Wright's argument about not being subject to federal jurisdiction was mistaken. Id. at Doc. 6.
II. Discussion
This Court is obliged to "screen" prisoner complaints that seek redress from governmental
entities or employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This Court is required to dismiss claims that are
3
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.c.
§ 1915A(b)( 1); see also Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts.
Although Wright's Complaint is styled as a "Third Party
Complaint" and seeks $6.5 million from prosecutor Seiler, Wright's claims arise out of his
conviction and advance theories for relief from the conviction similar to Wright's previous
claims. Wright's claims are collateral attacks on the conviction through suing the prosecutor for
money damages for obtaining a conviction, and either a direct appeal or § 2255 case is the proper
avenue for Wright to present such a claim.
When Wright previously filed a post-conviction challenge to federal jurisdiction over
him, Judge Schreier recharacterized the pleading as one for habeas reliefunder 28 U.S.c. § 2255 ,
advised Wright ofthe restrictions on subsequent habeas petitions under 28 U.S.c. § 2255(h), and
permitted Wright to withdraw or amend to include all claims possible under § 2255. United
States v. Wright, CR 06-30026, Doc. 124. Wright did not withdraw his motion or amend his
claims, and proceeded with claims including that there was no federal criminal jurisdiction over
him and prosecutorial misconduct. Wright's § 2255 petition for relief was denied. Wright v.
United States, CIV 09-3017, Doc. 27. Wright's subsequent case likewise was in the nature ofa
§ 2255 case and again contained a claim that he was not subject to federal criminal jurisdiction.
See Wright v. United States, Civ. 11-3032, Doc. 6 at 7.
Under 28 U.S.c. § 2255(h), a second or a successive petition must be certified as
provided in 28 U.S.c. § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain either
"newly discovered evidence that, ifproven and viewed in light ofthe evidence as a whole, would
be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense;" or "a new rule of constitutional law, made
4
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable ."
See also Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts. Wright has not met this § 2255(h) requirement, so his petition is subject to dismissal on
this basis alone.
Although this Court does not need to reach the merits of Wright's claims, this Court has
had cause, on a number of previous occasions, to address Wright's misapprehension that as a
Native American Indian he is outside of federal criminal jurisdiction by treaty. Wright does not
specify in this lawsuit what treaty rights he believes Seiler violated in prosecuting him, but his
previous argument appeared to be based on a misinterpretation of the "bad men" clause of the
Fort Laramie Treaty. The "bad men" clause provides that:
If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation
upon the person or property of anyone, white, black, or Indian,
subject to the authority of the United States, and at peace therewith,
the Indians herein named solemnly agree that they will, upon proof
made to their agent and notice by him, deliver up the wrong-doer to
the United States, to be tried and punished according to its laws ....
Art. I, paragraph 3, Treaty ofFt. Laramie of 1868. The "bad men" clause does not exempt Native
American Indians from being held responsible for violation offederallaw. Congress, in passing
the Major Crimes Act, "intended full implementation of federal criminal jurisdiction in those
situations to which the Major Crimes Act extended." United States v. Jacobs, 638 F.3d 567,569
(8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Kane, 537 F.2d 310, 311 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam)).
Wright's assertion of "a Treaty Violation and Illegal Incarceration, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
[and] Fraud" against Seiler is contrary to jurisdiction over Wright under the Major Crimes Act.
While Native Americans have good reason in a historical sense to question how the United States
chose to honor or dishonor the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the "bad men" clause and the treaty
5
itself does not render Wright immune from prosecution for violation offederal criminal law. The
federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over Wright due to the fact that his crime occurred
in Indian Country and Wright is a Native American. 18 US.C. § 1153(a); United States v. Jones,
440 F. 3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 does not
deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Seiler, as the federal prosecutor, likewise, is immune from suit under the circumstances
of this case. The Supreme Court ofthe United States held in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 US. 409
(1976) that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is
immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983." Id. at 431. "Absolute immunity covers
prosecutorial functions such as the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution, the
presentation of the state's case at trial, and other conduct that is intimately associated with the
judicial process." Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996). Conversely,
a prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when he pursues actions in an "investigatory"
or "administrative" capacity. Buckleyv. Fitzsimmons, 509 US. 259, 273 (1993). In determining
whether the actions ofthe prosecutor fit within the absolute or qualified immunity standard, the
Supreme Court has adopted a functional approach that looks to "the nature of the function
performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forresterv. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229
( 1988).
There is nothing in Wright's allegations relating to Seiler acting in an investigatory or
administrative capacity.
Rather, Wright sues Seiler for "a Treaty Violation and Illegal
Incarceration, Breach of Fiduciary Duty [and] Fraud" related to Seiler's initiation and handling
of the prosecution that resulted in Wright's actual conviction. Doc. 1.
III. Conclusion
6
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Wright's Third-Party Complaint is dismissed on its merits and with
prejudice as a successive § 2255 petition filed without an order from the court of appeals so
allowing and further that the record of proceedings demonstrates that Wright plainly is not
entitled to relief. It is further
ORDERED that all claims against Defendant Seiler are dismissed and that Judgment of
Dismissal hereby enters. It is finally
ORDERED that no certificate of appealability issue.
Dated October 20,2014.
BY THE COURT:
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?