Wolf Guts v. Attorney General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:17-CR-30059-RAL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER ON CERTAIN MOTIONS AND
FOR RESPONSE REGARDING WOLF
GUTS'S CIVIL COMMITMENT AND
SECTION 2255 CLAIMS
RICHARD WOLF GUTS,
Defendant.
RICHARD WOLF GUTS, 3:21-CV-03026-RAL
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
RICHARD WOLF GUTS, 4:21-CV-04213-RAL
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.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

RICHARD WOLF GUTS, 4:21-CV-04214-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.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

RICHARD WOLF GUTS, 5:22-CV-05009-RAL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
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.
1. 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-CR-
30059,Doc. 1^. The charges resulted fiom an incident that occurred while WolfGuts was detained
in the Rosebud Siotix 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, failiue
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.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

cell and disobeying instructions &om 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 to 27 months in custody followed by two years ofsupervised release. Doc. 42. By this
Court's calculation, including the time served from the date of his arrest, his release date should
have been in the late spring or summer of2019^
For reasons not entirely clear to this Court, Wolf Guts remains in federal custody nearly
three years after this Court would have anticipated his release. He has filed several handwritten
letters and other materials seeking relief that are difficult to decipher and understand prompting
the Clerk of Court to open a series ofcivil cases. See 21-CIV-3026: 21-CIV-4213; 21-CIV-4214;
21-CIV-4215; 21-CrV-3028; 22-CIV-5009.
In his criminal case. United States of America v. Wolf Guts. 17-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
^ 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.
^ Wolf Guts claims his projected release date was May 21, 2019. 3:21-CV-03028,Doc. 1 at 6.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

$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 Courts advised that all further
docketing and filings regarding the matter would occur 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 himselffalsely accused of assault. Doc. 1.
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. 1, 6. He alleged a Richard Krueger
cut him on the stomach. Doc. 6. He wrote that he has been deemed mentally ill because he
diviUged 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. Krueeeer et al^. 21-CIV-4213, Wolf Guts submitted
a Civil Rights Complaint form. Doc. 1. He did not specify the source of federal jurisdiction(28
U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Bivens) 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 of$350,000,000 and $21,000,000. 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
A2; Kirk Albertson, Assistant United States Attomey.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

Also, on December 6, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. Attomev 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. Kruegger. 21-C1V4215, 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. 1. 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.
On December 23, 2021, in Wolf Guts v. Kruegger et al^. 21-CIV-3028, WolfGuts 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 offorce. Doc. 5. He requested $350,000,000
in damages. Doc. 1.
'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.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

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 ofthe date ofthis order. Wolf Guts is 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
11. Discussion
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: (1) the petitioner is "in custody," and (2) the custody violates "the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Sm Malene 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 ofthe 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 named as defendants: USP Tucson AZ; US Attomey General; FBOP US DOJ US
Attomeys at USP Tucson Arizona; AUSA Kirk Albertson of Pierre District; FBOP Psych Doctor;
MPM County Case Manager at USP Tucson AZ;US Attomey Springfield FMC at FBOP USDOJ;
Criminal Investigators, Special Agents at Rosebud South D^ota.
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

This Court could simply choose to dismiss WolfGuts's § 2241 petitions without prejudice
to re-filing in federal court in Springfield, Missouri. See Alpine v. Smith. No. 3:19-CV-03001-
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). Section 2241 habeas cases brought by
federal inmates like Wolf Guts are to proceed in the judicial district where the defendant is
incarcerated. Mathenv. 307 F.3d at 711. Wolf Guts is in custody in Springfield, Missouri, not in
South Dakota. His § 2241 petitions therefore should be filed in the federal court in Missouri where
he evidently is held within a federal medical center. This Court either can transfer the § 2241 cases
to the district where Wolf Guts is incarcerated or dismiss them without prejudice to filing
elsewhere.
This Court is to screen pro se inmate actions imder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The screenii^
process allows the district court to dismiss claims that are irrational or incomprehensible. Denton
V. Hernandez.504 U.S.25,32(1992). While a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed, it still
must contain specific facts supporting its conclusion. Allen v. Purkett. 5 F.3d 1151,1153(8th Cir.
1993); Erickson v. Pardus. 551 U.S. 89,94(2007).
Despite some issues with clarity in his pleadings, Wolf Guts has alleged he is being held
in custody past his release date which states a plausible ground for relief. Kansa.s v. Hendricks.
521 U.S. 346, 356(1997)("Although fi-eedom from physical restraint has always been at the core
ofthe liberty protected by the Due Process Clause fi-om arbitrary governmental action,that liberty
interest is not absolute."(cleaned up and citation omitted)). The same allegations about wrongful
detention and being a victim of assaults by federal officers that comprise his § 2241 filings form
the substance of his §§ 2255 and 1331 Bivens complaints. As a preliminary matter. Wolf Guts's
claims have enough substance to survive under § 1915A, but likely do not belong in this judicial
8
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

district. To assist this Court in determining whether to dismiss without prejudice or transfer the
cases to federal court in Springfield, Missotui, this Court will order the U.S. Attorney's Office"^
file a responsive pleading in the § 2255 case of Wolf Guts v. United States. 21-CIV-3026, to
include an explanation behind his civil commitment and addressing claims made in fiiat § 2255
case." The response of the United States should assist the Court in understanding Wolf Guts's
civil commitment, screening Wolf Guts's complaints and determining whether "the motion and
the files and records ofthe case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief in Wolf
Guts's § 2255 petitions. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings provides that "The judge who receives the
motion must promptly examine it. Ifit plainly appears fi-om the motion, any attached exhibits, and
the record ofprior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, thejudge must dismiss
the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. Ifthe motion is not dismissed,the judge
must order the United States attomey to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed
time, or to take other action the judge may order." Section 2255(b) provides "Unless the motion
and the files and records ofthe case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the
court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attomey, grant a prompt
hearing thereon,determine the issues and make fmdings offact and conclusions oflaw with respect
thereto. Ifthe court fmds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence
imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been
such a denial or infringement ofthe constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment
vulnerable to collateral attack,the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge
the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear
appropriate." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
"This Court acknowledges that it appears on face that Wolf Guts's § 2255 petitions are time-
barred by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(f)'s one-year statute of limitations. Nevertheless, to efficiently
respond to Wolf Guts's numerous claims of relief, this Court orders a response regarding Wolf
Guts's civil commitment before dismissal.
Another avenue to dismiss the successive § 2255 petitions would be through Rule 9 ofthe Rules
Governing § 2255 Proceedings and § 22550i)- Rule 9 provides "Before presenting a second or
successive motion, the moving party must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals
authorizing the district court to consider the motion, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255, para. 8."
Section 2255(h) provides"A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section
2244 by a panel ofthe appropriate coxut ofappeals to contain"(l)newly discovered evidence that,
if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfmder would have fotmd the movant guilty of the
offense; or(2)a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by
the Supreme Court, that was previously tmavailable. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). It does not appear
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>

Therefore,for good cause, it is
ORDERED that the U.S. Attorney's Office is directed to file a response within 28 days in
21-CIV-3026, explaining why Wolf Guts is still in Bureau of Prisons' custody and if he in fact is
civilly committed and under what order. It is further
ORDERED that Wolf Guts has 28 days fixim this order to pay the Clerk ofCourt filing fees
of $402 in 21-CIV-4213, $5 in 21-CIV-4214, $5 in 21-CIV-4215, and $402 in 22-CIV-5009.
There is no filing fee owed in 21-CrV-3026 and 21-CrV-3028. It is further
ORDERED that the motions filed as Doc. 50 in 17-CR-30059, Doc. 2 in 21-CIV-3026,
Doc 2 in 21-CIV-4214 and Doc.2in 21-CIV-3028 are all denied though this Court may still direct
service as if IFF status had been granted or may transfer cases, depending on the response of the
United States.
DATED this 3y'*day of March,2022.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE
that Wolf Guts's successive § 2255 petitions were certified. See also Gomez v. Mattson. No.4:21-
CV-04177-RAL,2021 WL 5583019,at *2(D.S.D. Nov. 30,2021)(dismissing § 2254 petition for
filing successive petitions widiout gaining cotut ofappeals aufiiorization).
10
Case 4:21-cv-04214-RAL Document 7 Filed 03/29/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>