United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR INSPECTION OF
LOWER COURT (#72)
Page Kelley United States Magistrate District Judge
has filed a “Motion for Inspection of Lower Court's
Ongoing Suspicious Dealings with Plaintiff's Past and
Present Filings.” (#72). For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is DENIED.
habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Dashaun Wright
challenges his 2004 Massachusetts convictions. At present, he
is serving his sentence for those convictions at the Ely
State Prison in Ely, Nevada.
Motion for Inspection, Petitioner claims that Massachusetts
and Nevada officials are operating a “scam/scheme
I'm currently serving my time in Nevada, a transfer
I'm certain was due to Massachusetts' Department of
Correction and state officials in collusion with some unknown
outside entity, illegally obtaining funds of min [sic] before
creating a “scam/scheme operation” with the sole
purpose of continuing to do business with these funds while
unjustly but secretly denying me my independence. Here in
Nevada, D.O.C. staff and state officials have adopted the
criminal design entirely.
It is my theory that the motive of Massachusetts state
officials employment of the “scheme operation” is
to force me to proceed pro se where I would be exploited by
the courts, rather than allow me to hire legal representation
that will expose the ineffectiveness that also constitutes as
malpractice by trial and appellate counsel, and prosecutorial
misconduct by the courts and prosecution.
Mot. at 1-2.
believes that the disposition of a civil action he filed in
Suffolk Superior Court after he had been transferred to
Nevada could be evidence of this “scheme.”
Petitioner represents that his claims in that action
concerned the “scheme operation” itself. He
states that, after discovery had been stayed for over a year,
he filed a motion for a restraining order in which he
“incriminate[d] Massachusetts state officials and their
Nevada agents.” Id. at 3. Shortly thereafter,
in December 2017, the case was dismissed. He implies that
the dismissal was to prevent exposure of the
also believes that the docket of the case was sabotaged and
that state court showed “deliberate indifference”
concerning his “allegation of criminal conduct by state
officials.” Id. at 4. Further, he alleges that
state criminal court sabotaged his attempts to obtain
post-conviction relief by failing to docket his second motion
for a new trial.
asks this Court “to investigate the lower courts'
unethical behavior, because these incidences cannot be
coincidental, instead they display a pattern of behavior by
the lower courts, which indicates that the lower courts have
an obvious agenda.” Id. at 4. He is not
directly challenging the dismissal of his state civil action:
“Now it's not the adverse ruling itself that
warrants investigation, but rather the motive for, and the
timing of the ruling, and the lower court's unwillingness
to explore discovery, and whether this willingness is to
protect certain state officials possible including court
employees to conceal misconduct.” Id.at 3.
III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of federal
courts to deciding actual “Cases” or
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
“In other words, for a federal court to have authority
under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before
it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible
harm.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693,
the Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of
state authorities; the matter presented does not meet Article
III's jurisdictional requirement of a case or
controversy. The role of a federal court is to adjudicate
disputes presented to it by the parties whose interests are
at stake. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate
suspicious conduct to see if a dispute exists. In contrast, a
federal grand jury, which is convened by a federal
prosecutor, “does not depend on a case or controversy
for power to get evidence but can investigate merely on
suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just
because it wants assurance that it is not.” United
States v. Morton Salt ...