Opinion
3:17-CV-03011-LLP
01-09-2018
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
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 Lewis v. Estes, 242 F.3d 375 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999)).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 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 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. 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. 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.
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 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:
/s/_________
Lawrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge ATTEST:
MATTHEW W. THELEN, CLERK By:/s/_________
Deputy