Wright v. United States of America et al
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE; denying as moot 5 Motion for pro se notice of appearance; denying 7 Motion for New Trial. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 1/9/18. (SLW)
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Jan 09 2018
CENTRAL DIVISION
CLERK
3:17-CV-03011-LLP
KEITH L. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSEMG CASE
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OSCAR
RAMERIZ, F.B.I. SPECIAL AGENT; DAVID
MACKEY, F.B.I. SPECIAL AGENT; LARRY
LONG, FORMER
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
FOR
SOUTH
DAKOTA; MARTY J. JACKLEY, FORMER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR SOUTH
DAKOTA;
BRENDAN
V.
JOHNSON,
FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
FOR
SOUTH
DAKOTA;
RANDOLPH
J.
SEILER,
FORMER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; ERIC KELDERMAN,
CURRENT ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
FOR
SOUTH
DAKOTA;
JEREMY
R. JEHANGIRI, CURRENT
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; KEVIN KOLINER,
CURRENT ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
FOR
SOUTH
DAKOTA;
STEPHANIE C. BENGFORD, CURRENT
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; JEFFERY L. VIKEN,
FORMER UNITED STATES FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR SOUTH DAKOTA;
JANA MINER, FORMER ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER; EDWARD G. ALBRIGHT,
CURRENT ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER; ROBERT
OVERTURE,
UNITED
CURRENT
STATES
DEFENDER;
ASSISTANT
FEDERAL
KAREN
E.
PUBLIC
SCHREIER,
FORMER
CHIEF
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR SOUTH DAKOTA;
CHARLES B. KORNMANN, CURRENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA; ROBERTO A. LANGE,
CURRENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; MARK
MORENO, CURRENT UNITED
MAGISTRATE -' JUDGE
DAKOTA;
STATES
FOR
L.
VERONICA
SOUTH
DUFFY,
CURRENT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; UNITED
STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON'S,
UNITED STATES MARSHALL SERVICE,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
MICHAEL ROUNDS, FORMER GOVERNOR
FOR STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DENNIS
M. DAUGAARD, CURRENT GOVERNOR
FOR
STATE
OF
SOUTH
DAKOTA;
MICHAEL STRAIN, FORMER MELLETTE
COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY FOR SOUTH
DAKOTA; DUSTIN
BAXTER, FORMER
MELLETTE COUNTY SHERIFF; JUSTIN
HOOPER,
FQRMER
MELLETTE
DEPUTY
COUNTY
FOR
SHERIFF
OFFICE/DEPARTMENT; FRED
DAVIS,
FORMER
DEP'UTY
FOR
MELLETTE
COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT;
DERRIS WAUKAZOO, FORMER DEPUTY
FOR
MELLETTE
COUNTY
OFFICE/DEPARTMENT;
SHERIFF
JESSE
BLACK
ELK, FORMER DEPUTY FOR MELLETTE
COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT;
ANDREA WADE, CURRENT MELLETTE
COUNTY
SOUTH
MAGISTRATE
DAKOTA; LORI
JUDGE
S.
FOR
WILBUR,
FORMER PRESIDING CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA; KATHLEEN TRANDAHL,
FORMER CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA; JAMES W. ANDERSON,
former circuit court judge for
SOUTH
DAKOTA;
ROSEBUD
SIOUX
TRIBE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHERMAN
MARSHALL, CHlEF JUDGE ROSBEBUD
SIOUX
TRIBE
COURTS;
RODNEY
BORDEAUX, FORMER ROSEBUD SIOUX
TRIBE COUNCIL PRESIDENT; WILLIAM
KINDLE, CURRENT
ROSEBUD
SIOUX
TRIBE COUNCIL PRESIDENT; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA, MISSION, SD DIVISION;
TIFFANY R.M. LEADING CLOUD, TITUS J.
LEADING CLOUD, JEREMY C. LEADING
CLOUD, JESSICA L. WRIGHT, LEIGH A.
LEADING
CLOUD,
RICHARD
ROUBIDEAUX, JUANITA M. KILBOURN,
SEAN H.D. KILBOURN, PERI STRAIN,
JODY CALLAWAY, MARVIN THIN ELK,
PATRICIA
THIN
ELK,
DENNIS
YOUNGMAN, ROSE ANN WENDELL,
ALVIN
PAHLKE,
EMILY
SOVELL,
CLARABELLE
LEADING
CLOUD-
BORDEAUX, JEANETTE ROAN EAGLELEE,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Keith Lee Wright, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
serving a life sentence. U.S. v. Wright, CR 06-30026, Dockets 86 and 94. Wright filed a pro se
Criminal Complaint and Civil Rights Complaint in this case naming many defendants. Docket 1.
Wright paid his full filing fee (Dockets 3 and 4), filed a motion for pro se notice of appearance
(Docket 5), and moved for a new trial (Docket 7).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner complaint and identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. This screening process "applies to all civil complaints filed
by [a] prisoner[], regardless of payment of[the] filing fee." Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 at *1
(8th Cir. 2000)(unpublished)(citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116(2d Cir. 1999)).
The court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 774
F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights and pro se complaints must he liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th
Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, "a pro se complaint must contain specific facts
supporting its conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Civil rights
complaints cannot be merely conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993);
Parker v. Porter, 221 F. App'x 481,482(8th Cir. 2007).
A complaint "does not need detailed
factual allegations . . . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). "If a plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate." Beavers v.
sp
s
Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985).
!
Mr. Wright characterizes his case in part as a criminal complaint. Docket 1. Private
individuals do not have the right to prosecute defendants for alleged violations of federal
criminal statutes. Whatley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., Civ. No. 4:08-1108, 2009 WL 3756624,
at *10(E.D.Mo.2009)(internal citation omitted). Consequently, Mr. Wright has "no standing to
assert a claim arising under a criminal statute." Winkle v. Sargus, Civ. No. 2:14-0003, 2014 WL
111173, at *1 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 10, 2014) (citing Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316
(1979)).
Mr. Wright also characterizes his case as a civil rights complaint. Docket 1. Mr. Wright,
however, fails to .allege specific facts and merely recites legal claims with broad descriptions.
J
Although the court holds pro se litigants' pleadings to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers," it is not the duty of this court to assist pro se litigants with their
substantive claims. Raines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Furthermore, a § 1983 or § 1985
complaint is not the proper venue for Mr. Wright's claims for injunctive relief. Mr. Wright
4
claims that his constitutional rights were violated in his criminal case. These are habeas claims.
To the extent that Mr. Wright seeks habeas relief, these claims are dismissed. Mr. Wright has
already filed two federal habeas petitions, the proper vehicle for these claims. See Civ. Doe. 093017; Civ. Doc. 14-3014. Judge Schreier denied Wright's first § 2255 petition with 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. Civ. Doe. 09-
3017. In his second petition, Judge Lange dismissed the § 2255 case on screening as a second or
a successive petition. Civ. Doc. 14-3014.
Mr. Wright also filed a motion for a new trial. Docket 7. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides for a "motion for new trial grounded on newly discovered evidence
must be filed within 3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty." The time to file a motion for a
new trial has passed. Additionally, it is not at all clear from Mr. Wright's motion what newly
I
discovered evidence he possesses.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED
1. Wright's motion for a new trial (Docket 7)is denied.
2. Wright's case (Docket 1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
3. Wright's motion for pro se notice of appearance(Docket 5)is denied as moot.
Dated this 9th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
OiVjiiujuL
L&
rence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
ATTEST:
MATTHEW W.THELEN,CL^RK
By:
Deputy
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?