Wolf Guts v. Kruegger et al

Filing 7

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF WOLF GUTS'S CIVIL CASES IN DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 5/25/2022. Mailed to Richard Wolf Guts. (CLR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

3:I7-CR-30059-RAL

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF WOLF
GUTS'S CIVIL CASES IN DISTRICT OF
SOUTH DAKOTA

vs.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,
Defendant.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,

3:21-CV-03026-RAL

Plaintiff,
vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

KRUEGGER,
WARDEN
AT
FMC
SPRINGFIELD MO; DR TYNER, DOCTOR
AT FMC SPRINGFIELD; DR HAMPTON,

DOCTOR

AT FMC

SPRINGFIELD; DR

LIGATA, DOCTOR AT USP TUCSON AZ;
AND KIRK ALBERTSON, ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY;
Defendants.

4:2I-CV-04213-RAL

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,

4:21-CV-042I4-RAL

Plaintiff,

vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendant.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,

4:21-CV-04215-RAL

Plaintiff,

vs.

MR.J. KRUEGGER,
Defendant.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,

3:21-CV-03028-RAL

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. KRUEGGER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF

THE

STATE

OF

SPRINGFIELD

MISSOURI,
Defendants.

RICHARD WOLF GUTS,

5:22-CV-05009-RAL

Plaintiff,

vs.

US?

TUCSON

AZ,

U.S.

ATTORNEY

GENERAL, FBOP USDOJ US ATTORNEYS,
AT USP TUCSON ARIZONA; AUSA KIRK
ALBERTSON, OF PIERRE DISTRICT; FBOP
PSYCH DOCTOR, MPM COUNTY CASE
MANAGER, USP TUCSON AZ;
US
ATTORNEY SPRINGFIELD FMC, AT FBOP
USDOJ; AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS,
SPECIAL AGENTS AT ROSEBUD SOUTH

DAKOTA;
Defendants.

I. Background

In April 2017, Richard Wolf Guts was indicted' in 17-CR-30059-RAL for Assaulting,
Resisting, Opposing, and Impeding a Federal Officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). 17-CR30059,Doc. 1

The charges resulted from an incident that occurred while WolfGuts was detained

in the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Correctional Facility. Doc. 36 at 4. After spilling water in his

'Wolf Guts has several other criminal convictions for felony sexual abuse of a minor, assaulting,
resisting, opposing and impeding a federal officer, threatening a law enforcement officer, failure

to register,(felony) simple assault of a law enforcement officer, intentional damage to property,
impersonating to deceive a law enforcement officer. Doc. 36

^ The document numbers in this order correspond to the case docket numbers referenced in the
same or proceeding paragraphs.

cell and disobeying instructions from corrections personnel, he was placed in a restraining chair.

Doc. 36 at 4. He spit, bit and kicked correctional staff in the process.^ Doc. 36 at 4.

Wolf Guts was federally arrested on or about April 19,2017.^ He pleaded guilty and was
sentenced on September 12, 2017, to 27 months in custody followed by two years of supervised
release. Doc. 42. Beginning in 2021, Wolf Guts has filed several handwritten letters and other

materials seeking reliefthat are difficult to decipher and understand, prompting the Clerk of Court
to open a series of civil cases. ^2I-ClV-3026; 21-CIV-4213; 2I-CIV-4214; 21-CIV-4215; 21CIV-3028; 22-CIV-5009. This Court entered on March 29, 2022, an Order on Certain Motions
and for Response Regarding Wolf Guts's Civil Commitment and Section 2255 Claims, which was

filed in each case. Wolf Guts was given 28 days from that order to pay filing fees and the United
States was given 28 days to file a response under seal explaining why WolfGuts remains in federal
custody. On May 2, 2022, Wolf Guts paid filing fees in 4:21-CV-04213 ($292); 4:21-CV-04214
(35); and 4:21-CV-04215 ($5). No filing fees is required for the § 2255 case of 3:21-CV-03026.
No filing fee was received for the § 2254 case of 3;21-CV-03028, The United States filed material
under seal regarding a civil commitment of Wolf Guts under an order from the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri: U.S. v. Wolf Guts. No.6-19-CV-03168-MDH.

Prior to transfer to Bureau of Prisons' Federal Medical Facility in Springfield, Wolf Guts had been
incarcerated in Arizona and was indicted for three separate offenses ofassaulting law enforcement
federal officers in the District of Arizona. U.S. v. Wolf Guts. 4:19-CR-00842-JCH-DTF.

^ During the pretrial proceedings, Wolf Guts continued to exhibit disconcerting and erratic
behavior. He was combative and spit on staff, refused to take prescribed medication, broke several
sprinklers in his cell resulting in flooding, was restrained and threatened suicide. Doc. 36 at 3-4.
Wolf Guts has remained in custody throughout the proceedings.

In his criminal case, United States of America v. Wolf Guts. i7-CR-30059, Wolf Guts

moved the Court in September 2021 for reliefclaiming he was injured by correctional staff. Docs.

50, 51. He claimed to have knowledge of a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances run by
Rosebud Sioux Tribe law enforcement. Docs. 50, 51. He also claimed that federal correctional

officers in Tucson Arizona, were bringing heroin into the facility. Doc. 50. He referenced to a
March 9,2018, incident where his nose was fractured and his stomach cut twice with a knife. Doc.

51,52. He wrote about being a member ofthe Mexican mafia. Doc. 50, 52. He admitted to using
alcohol while in custody but claimed to have found faith in Jimmy Swagger Ministries such that
he wants to preach to Native people. Doc. 51. He requested damages in the amount of
$350,000,000. Doc. 50. None of these claims Justify relief from his conviction and sentence in
17-CR-30059. Accordingly, in December, 2021, the Clerk of Court advised that all further
docketing and filings regarding his claims in 17-CR-30059 would be docketed in civil case
number: 21-CIV-3026.

On December 23, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. United States of America. 21-CIV-3026, Wolf
Guts filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence and moved to proceed in forma
pauperis. Docs. 1,2. He claimed that he did not have a proper hearing for civil commitment and
is being falsely imprisoned. Docs. 1, 6. He believed himself falsely accused of assault. Doc. I.

He referenced to a March 9, 2018, incident where he was headbutted by case manager Mr. Shied
in Tucson, Arizona and claims his nose was fractured. Docs. I, 6. He alleged a Richard Krueger
cut him on the stomach. Doc. 6. He wrote that he has been deemed mentally ill because he
divulged information about federal prisons staffselling drugs in correctional facilities. Doc.6. He

requested damages in the amount of$350,000,000 and to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2.

On December 6, 2021, Wolf Guts v. Krueegcr et al^ 21-CIV-4213, Wolf Guts submitted

a Civil Rights Complaint form. Doc. 1. He did not specify the source offederal jurisdiction (28
U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Bivensl under which he claimed relief.
Doc. 1. He alleged he was assaulted by federal correctional staff and had his nose fractured. Doc.
1. He claimed an officer named Mr. Shied cut him with a knife. Doc. 1. He claimed the

correctional staff at the Springfield Medical Center failed to bring him legal material to continue
his appeals. Doc. 1. He requested damages in the amount ofS350,000,000 and $21,000,000. Doc.
1.

Also, on December 6, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. Attorney General. 21-CIV-4214, Wolf Guts

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and 2255 and moved to proceed
without paying fees. Doc. 1,2. He claimed he was being committed against his will for testifying
about correctional staff distributing drugs in prison facilities. Docs. 1,6. He mentioned his nose

being fractured. Docs. 1,6. He claimed he was being falsely imprisoned. Docs. 1,6.
On December 7, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. Krueeeer. 21-CIV4215, Wolf Guts filed a habeas

petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2.
He disputed his continued custody after serving his 27 months sentence. Docs. 1, 5. He claimed
his Eighth Amendment right was being violated by a civil commitment. Doc. I. He referred to

incidents on March 9, 2018, and June 12, 2018, where he was cut by correctional staff with a
pocket knife. Doc. 1. He claimed continued confinement has caused him to hear voices in his

head. Doc. 1. He requested punitive damages. Doc. 1.

^ Wolf Guts named as defendants: Kruegger, Warden at FMC Springfield MO;Dr. Tyner, Doctor
at FMC Springfield; Dr. Hampton, Doctor at FMC Springfield; Dr. Ligata, Doctor at USP Tucson
AZ; Kirk Albertson, Assistant United States Attorney.

On December 23, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. Kruegger et al-. 2I-CIV-3028, Wolf Guts moved

to proceed in forma pauperis to file a § 2254' habeas petition claiming he is illegally being held
on a civil commitment under 18 U.S.C.§ 4246 after a doctor fraudulently claimed he was a danger
to the public. Docs. 1, 2. He claimed the real reason he is being detained is because he wanted to
testify about Mexican cartels distributing drugs in federal prison facilities. Doc. 1. He mentioned
a June 12, 2018 incident where a correctional officer he referred to as Mr. Shied assaulted him.

Doc. 1,5. He argued this constituted excessive use of force. Doc. 5. He requested $350,000,000
in damages. Doc. 1.

On January 6, 2022, in USP Tucson AZ et al^. 22-CIV-5009, Wolf Guts moved to proceed
in forma pauperis with a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Bivens complaint claiming corrections staff assaulted
him at the Tucson, Arizona, federal prison facility. Docs. 1, 2. With his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this most recent case, Wolf Guts filed a Prisoner Trust Account

Report reflecting a current balance of $3,326.31, and an average balance over the prior 30 day
period of$3,426.35. Doc. 3. Wolf Guts thus has the financial ability to pay filing fees, which are
$5 for § 2241 actions and $402 for Bivens cases. There is no filing fee for a § 2255 case.
As of the date of this order. Wolf Guts continues to be housed at the Springfield Medical
Center Federal Prison Facility in Springfield, Missouri, {https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ inmate:
13314-073). His release date is listed as unknown. Id

® Wolf Guts named as respondents: J. Kruegger and the Attorney General of the State of
Springfield Missouri.

'
WolfGuts is not a state inmate,so § 2254 does not apply. As a federal inmate,§ 2255 is the route
for Wolf Guts to seek post-conviction habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

* Wolf Guts named as defendants: USP Tucson AZ; US Attorney General; FBOP US DOJ US
Attorneys at USP Tucson Arizona; AUSA Kirk Albertson ofPierre District; FBOP Psych Doctor;
MPM County Case Manager at USP Tucson AZ; US Attorney Springfield FMC at FBOP USDOJ;
Criminal Investigators, Special Agents at Rosebud South Dakota.

II. Discussioa

The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless ... [h]e is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Therefore, a federal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a § 2241 petition as long as two
requirements are met: (I) the petitioner is "in custody," and (2) the custody violates "the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." See Maleng v. Cook. 490 U.S. 488, 490

(1989); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). "A petitioner may attack the execution of his sentence through §
2241 in the district where he is incarcerated; a challenge to the validity of the sentence itself must
be brought under § 2255 in the district of the sentencing court." Mathenv v. Morrison. 307 F.3d

709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002). Wolf Guts is not in custody in South Dakota, so any attack on the
execution of his sentence properly is reserved in the U.S. District for the Western District of

Missouri. Rather than transfer any case, this Court will dismiss the cases without prejudice as
there already is at least one Wolf Guts case open in the Western District of Missouri. ^Alpine

V- Smith. No. 3:19-CV-0300I-RAL,2019 WL 8499344, at *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 12,2019)(dismissing
§ 2241 petition because petition was filed in the wrong district and was incomprehensible);
Mathenv. 307 F.3dat711.

Wolf Guts was convicted in the District of South Dakota and thus jurisdiction over a §
2255 motion can exist here if indeed Wolf Guts is detained under a sentence of this Court. 28

U.S.C. § 2255(a). To assist this Court in determining whether to dismiss the § 2255 case of Wolf
Guts V. United States. 21-CIV-3026,this Court required the United States to include an explanation
behind his civil commitment and addressing claims made in that § 2255 case. The portion of the
response of the United States in recounting Wolf Guts's subsequent charges in the District of
Arizona, civil commitment is uncontested in the Western District of Missouri. Docs. 18, 20, 21.

Based on the settled record on the § 2255 motion,"the motion and the files and records ofthe case
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief in the District of South Dakota. 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255.

There are two basic reasons why this Court must deny Wolf Guts's § 2255 petition. First,
for the District of South Dakota to have jurisdiction, WolfGuts must be detained under a sentence
imposed by this Court. Wolf Guts points out that his release dale under the sentence this Court
imposed would have been May 21, 2019. 21-CV-05028, Doc. 1 at 6. Wolf Guts is not detained

due to this Court's sentence but due to his indictment on three assaulting federal officer charges in
the District of Arizona and the civil commitment order entered by the Westem District of Missouri.

Indeed, Wolf Guts is not even asserting that the sentence that this Court imposed was
constitutionally defective, but that what happened thereafter in other districts deprived him of his

rights. Under § 2255(e), Wolf Guts should be filing any § 2255 motions at this point in those
courts, not this one.

Second, WolfGuts has not met the one-year statute oflimitations for filing a § 2255 motion
in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)("A 1-year period of limitation shall ... run from ... the date

on which thejudgment ofconviction becomes final."). This Court entered Judgment ofConviction
in Wolf Guts's underlying criminal case on September 12, 2017. 17-CR-30059, Doc. 42. Wolf
Guts did not appeal. Wolf Guts's § 2255 motion was filed on December 23,2021, more than four

years afterjudgment in his case became final and indeed well after the 27-month custody sentence
from this Court had run. Although § 2255(f)(4) begins the,1-year period on "the date on which
the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise

ofdue diligence," this provision is not intended as opening this Court to become a court ofappeals

or second court to review civil commitment proceedings ongoing In the Western District of
Missouri.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Wolf Guts's § 2255 petition in 21-CV-3026 is denied and that case is

dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the Western District of Missouri. It is further

ORDERED that the remaining civil cases filed by WolfGuts—^21-CV-4213,21-4214,214215, 21-3028, and 22-CV-5009—are all dismissed without prejudice for an absence of
jurisdiction over the claims in the District of South Dakota. Wolf Guts's petitions in 4:21-CV-

04213^ and 3;21-CV-03028"^ are also dismissed for failure to pay filing fees.

DATED this 29th day of May,2022.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE

'Wolf Guts paid S292 in this case, not the $402 required filing fee.
Wolf Guts failed to pay the $5 filing fee for a § 2254 petition.
10