Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SIMPSON v. RENO

October 13, 1995

Peter Jon Simpson, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPORKIN

 This matter comes before this Court on pro se Plaintiffs' request for a Writ of Mandamus against Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the United States of America, Stephen Hill Jr. United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, and Edward L. Dowd, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this court on March 10, 1995. The Government moved for and was granted two extensions of time within which to respond to the Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Government missed the deadline for its response to the Plaintiffs' Complaint.

 Thereafter, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Defendants should not be found in default for failing to respond to the complaint in a timely manner, why sanctions should not be imposed against Defendants, and why the relief requested in the complaint should not be granted. In response to that Order to Show Cause, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Sanctions for failure to file an answer to the complaint in a timely manner.

 FACTS

 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), Plaintiffs assert that they have the right to have a special grand jury impaneled so that they may appear before it and present evidence of alleged criminal conduct. Plaintiffs have asked this Court for a declaratory judgment adopting Plaintiffs' interpretation of § 3332(a) and a mandatory injunction compelling the United States Department of Justice to comply with Plaintiffs' interpretation of the statute. The Plaintiffs seek to present evidence of alleged criminal acts committed by members of the federal and state judiciary in issuing adverse rulings against both Plaintiffs in separate and unrelated proceedings.

 Allegations in the Complaint derive from two separate events. Plaintiff Simpson claims that in November of 1991, his daughter was removed from his custody by officials from the State of Missouri. He asserts that the state court judge's actions in the case violated 18 U.S.C. § 242, which makes it a crime for anyone acting under the color of law to deprive a person of any rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 Plaintiff Brown was the Plaintiff in a civil action that he brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Popular Mechanics magazine, the General Motors Corporation and several others. His claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This dismissal was later upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Brown v. Popular Mechanics, 37 F.3d 1503 (8th Cir. 1994) After failing in that action, Plaintiff Brown now asserts that the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1503 which makes it a crime to attempt, "corruptly, or by threats or force," to influence, intimidate, or impede any juror or court officer, or otherwise to obstruct the due administration of justice.

 ANALYSIS

 I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.

 A writ of mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 99 L. Ed. 2d 296, 108 S. Ct. 1133 (1988); In re Halkin, 194 U.S. App. D.C. 257, 598 F.2d 176, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they lack adequate alternative means to obtain the requested relief, that the defendant's have a peremptory duty to act, and that their right to the issuance of the writ is clear and undisputable. Council of and for the Blind of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Regan, 228 U.S. App. D.C. 295, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Even were these requirements satisfied, the issuance of the writ is within the sound discretion of the court. Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725, 96 S. Ct. 2119 (1976).

 Plaintiffs are correct when they claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3332 (a) requires a United States Attorney to present information concerning criminal activity to a special grand jury upon the request of an individual. In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199, 203-06 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). As of August 24, 1995, there were no special grand juries impaneled in the Western District of Missouri, sitting in Springfield. See Declaration of Michael A. Jones, Deputy United States Attorney, attached as Exhibit 4 to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On August 25, 1995, there was no special grand jury convened anywhere in the Eastern District of Missouri. See Letter from United States Attorney Edward L. Dowd, Jr., attached as Exhibit 5 to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

 In essence, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order the Defendants of the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri to impanel a grand jury. 18 U.S.C. § 3331 provides that special grand juries are to be impaneled by the court at least once every 18 months in districts inhabited by more than 4 million people. In other areas, special grand juries will be created at the discretion of the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C. § 3331. Plaintiffs can neither establish a duty of the Defendants to present information to a jury which does not exist ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.