Reich v. State of North Carolina

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:26-mc-00008-MR
SCOTT RANDALL REICH, )
)
Movant, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se “Motion for 18
U.S.C.A. § 3600 DNA Testing” filed by Scott Randall Reich (herein “Movant”)
on March 18, 2026. [Doc. 1].
I. BACKGROUND
The Movant is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina.1 The Movant
was convicted in Rutherford County Superior Court on October 2, 2008, of
First-Degree Murder. [NCDAC Database]. The Movant received a sentence
of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. [Id.].
1 See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=
1106083&searchOffenderId=1106083&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersea
rchresults&listpage=1(herein “NCDAC Database”); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 1:26-mc-00008-MR Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On August 5, 2013, the Movant filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to attack his
Rutherford County judgment. [WDNC Case No. 1:13-cv-00221-FDW; Doc.
1]. The Court dismissed that petition without prejudice due to the Movant’s
failure to exhaust his state remedies. [Id.; Doc. 3].
On March 6, 2017, the Movant filed in this Court another Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to attack his
Rutherford County judgment. [WDNC Case No. 1:17-cv-00068-FDW; Doc.
1]. The Court directed the Respondent to file an answer to the petition, which
the Respondent did, and the Respondent also filed a motion for summary
judgment raising, inter alia, the statute of limitations defense. [Id.; Docs. 2;
9; 10; and 11]. The Movant filed a Reply to the Respondent’s Answer [id.;
Doc. 16], and an Objection to the Respondent’s summary judgment motion.
[Id.; Doc. 14]. The Court granted the Respondent’s summary judgment
motion and dismissed that petition as having been filed beyond the
applicable periods of limitation. [Id.; Doc. 22].
On March 25, 2021, the Movant filed in this Court another Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to attack his
Rutherford County judgment. [WDNC Case No. 1:21-cv-00083-MR; Doc. 1].
Case 1:26-mc-00008-MR Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
The Court dismissed that petition as an unauthorized successive petition.
[Id.; Doc. 8].
The Movant commenced the present action March 18, 2026,
purportedly under the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3600
(herein “IPA”), seeking “an order granting post-conviction DNA, namely,
‘touch’ DNA testing.” [Doc. 1 at 2].
II. DISCUSSION
The IPA “opens the door to revisiting mistaken convictions, when the
new science of identifying people by their DNA left at a crime scene may
exonerate the wrongly convicted.” United States v. Watson, 792 F.3d 1174,
1177 (9th Cir. 2015). Further, an application for relief under the IPA, properly
made, is not a request for federal habeas relief, but an independent action
seeking a discreet remedy. United States v. Cowley, 814 F.3d 691, 696 (4th
Cir. 2016) (“the government argues that … the content of Cowley's motion
‘reveals itself as a successive habeas petition....’ We disagree.”); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3600(h)(3) (a motion under the IPA is not a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255). Nevertheless, the IPA only “allows federal prisoners to move for
court-ordered DNA testing under certain specified conditions.” Dist.
Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 63
(2009) (emphasis added). Specifically, the IPA provides:
Case 1:26-mc-00008-MR Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Upon a written motion by an individual sentenced to
imprisonment or death pursuant to a conviction for a Federal
offense ..., the court that entered the judgment of conviction shall
order DNA testing of specific evidence if the court finds that all of
the following [ten statutory conditions] apply.
18 U.S.C. § 3600(a) (emphasis added).
Because he is in custody only for a state law conviction, and he has
not been sentenced for or imprisoned due to a federal offense, the Movant
cannot seek DNA testing under the Innocence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §
3600. As such, the Court is without jurisdiction in this matter to proceed
further and this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
O R D E R
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 23, 2026
Case 1:26-mc-00008-MR Document 2 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 4