Buy This Entire Record For
Wright v. United States
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division
January 9, 2018
KEITH L. WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
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, CURRENT ASSISTANT UNITED STATES FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER; KAREN E. 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 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; VERONICA L. 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 DEPUTY FOR MELLETTE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT; FRED DAVIS, FORMER DEP'UTY FOR MELLETTE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT; DERRIS WAUKAZOO, FORMER DEPUTY FOR MELLETTE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT; JESSE BLACK ELK, FORMER DEPUTY FOR MELLETTE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE/DEPARTMENT; ANDREA WADE, CURRENT MELLETTE COUNTY MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SOUTH DAKOTA; LORI S. 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, CHIEF JUDGE ROSBEBUD SIOUX TRIBE COURTS; 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, S.D. 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 EAGLE-LEE, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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)).
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 be 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 Fed.Appx.
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. Lockhart,
755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir. 1985).
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
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. 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. Haines 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 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. Doc. 09-3017; 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. Doc. 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.
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 discovered evidence he
it is ORDERED
Wright's motion for a new trial (Docket 7) is denied.
Wright's case (Docket 1) is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to state a claim ...