United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
CLAIRE
V. EACAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion (Dkt.
# 72), filed September 20, 2019. Defendant requests leave to
proceed pro se and a “split-file
hearing” so that he may “contest” the
Court's verdict finding him not guilty only by reason of
insanity. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court denies the motion.
I.
Background
On
February 4, 2013, defendant Gregory A. Weiler, II, was
charged by indictment with possession of an unregistered
destructive device, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§
5861(d) and 5871. Dkt. # 2. On February 21, 2013, following a
hearing, the Court granted defendant's unopposed motion
for determination of competency and ordered him to be
examined for competency to stand trial. Dkt. # 16. In April
2013, following a hearing, the Court found defendant
incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the custody
of the Attorney General for care and treatment, for a period
not to exceed four months. Dkt. # 20. In August 2013,
defendant, through counsel, filed a notice of his intention
to assert an insanity defense. Dkt. # 24. At that time,
defendant was confined at Federal Medical Center (FMC) Butner
for competency restoration. Id. On the
plaintiff's motion, the Court ordered defendant to remain
at FMC Butner, for a period not to exceed 45 days, so that he
could be examined by a psychologist or psychiatrist for a
determination of whether he was insane at the time of the
offense alleged in the indictment. Dkt. # 28. The Court held
a competency hearing on January 6, 2014, and found, based on
evidence stipulated to at the hearing, that defendant was
competent to stand trial. Dkt. # 41.
Following
a non-jury trial on January 17, 2014, the Court found, based
on the parties' written stipulations concerning the
offense and three medical evaluations regarding
defendant's mental condition, that defendant committed
the charged offense and that defendant suffered from a severe
mental disease or defect when he committed the offense such
that he was not able to understand what he was doing or that
it was wrong. Dkt. # 48. Accordingly, the Court found
defendant not guilty only by reason of insanity, ordered him
committed to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for placement in a
suitable facility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(a), and
ordered him to undergo a psychiatric or psychological
examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(b).
Id.
An
evaluation was conducted, and a psychiatric or psychological
report (Dkt. # 59) was filed with the Court pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 4243(b). On July 1, 2014, the Court held a
dangerousness hearing as required by 18 U.S.C. §
4243(c). See Dkt. # 62. Upon stipulation of both
parties, the Court concluded that defendant had not met his
burden under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d) to prove that his
release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury
to another person or serious damage to property of another
due to a present mental disease or defect. Id. By
order filed July 1, 2014 (Dkt. # 62), the Court committed
defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4243(e).
On
September 20, 2019, defendant, who is currently confined at
FMC Devens in Massachusetts, filed the instant motion
requesting leave to proceed pro se and requesting a
“split-file hearing” to contest the “NGRI
(not guilty by reason of insanity) findings and
conviction” and obtain “dismissal” of his
criminal case. Dkt. # 72, at 1-7.[1] In the motion, defendant
challenges his NGRI verdict and the “dangerous”
findings on the basis that “the judge and courtroom
broke a law” during his prosecution when his public
defender mistakenly identified him in a document as Gregory
Weiler rather than Gregory A. Weiler, II. Id. at
4-5. Defendant alleges he has experienced
“issues” at FMC Devens because of this mistake
because his father, Gregory Weiler, “was a convicted
child molester and his history is accessible.”
Id. at 6. Defendant alleges that he is entitled to
“dismissal” of his charges, a “permanent
not guilty verdict” and “immediate
release.” Id. at 5. He also seeks $1.8 million
in “damages” or restitution for his false
imprisonment and states that he may seek additional damages
for injury, pain and suffering after he has “a final
check-up” and “private follow-up.”
Id. Defendant further requests an expedited ruling
on his motion and an immediate transfer to FMC Butner or a
court order to correct the document that mistakenly
identifies his name. Id. at 6.
After
filing the instant motion, defendant submitted three letters
(Dkt. ## 73, 74, 75) to the Court. In the first letter, filed
September 26, 2019, defendant refers to his
“petition” to contest the NGRI verdict, reasserts
his contention that an error occurred during his prosecution
when one or more documents were filed identifying him as
Gregory Weiler, and seeks dismissal of his criminal case
based on that error. Dkt. # 73, at 1. Defendant also states
that he is “formally dismissing” his public
defender. Id. In the same letter, defendant states
his intent to bring a “civil suit” against the
BOP, BOP staff members, and “the makers of all the
drugs [he has] ever taken” to assert claims (1) that he
is “experiencing cellular and genetic and blood and
skeletal mutations due to psychotropic drug battery, ”
and (2) that he has been forcibly medicated and
“overdrugged.” Dkt. # 73, at 2. He states that he
seeks “a double hearing” so that he may (1)
contest his criminal case and (2) pursue his civil claims.
Id. Defendant also reasserts his request for a court
order transferring him to FMC Butner. Id.
Defendant's
second letter, filed October 1, 2019, is styled as a
“civil complaint requesting formal resolution.”
Dkt. # 74. In the “complaint, ” defendant
identifies five separate “cases” against multiple
defendants. Id.
• In Case # 1, defendant purports to sue the BOP and
unnamed psychiatrists, psychologists, physician's
assistants, and medical doctors for “negligence and
malpractice, ” claiming that he has “multiple
issues with his body including morphing shoulder size,
morphing height, and an extra tube in [his] throat.”
Dkt. # 74, at 1. He appears to seek injunctive relief only,
namely, a battery of independent medical tests to confirm
that he now suffers from physical mutations. Id.
• In Case # 2, defendant purports to sue the BOP and FMC
Devens for “libel and slander, ” claiming that
the BOP has labeled his prison clothing and identification
cards with the name of a pedophile. Dkt. # 74, at 3.
Defendant alleges that because he has been labeled a
pedophile, he has “almost” been raped, he has
been beaten by other inmates, and he has been placed in the
“lockdown unit.” Id. As relief for these
claims, defendant seeks (1) transfer to FMC Butner, (2)
monetary damages, and (3) re-establishment of his good name.
Id.
• In Case # 3, defendant purports to sue the same
defendants he identifies in Case # 2 and claims he has been
assaulted with a controlled substance and force medicated for
practicing the Wiccan religion. Dkt. # 74, at 3. Defendant
refers to a “cell hearing, ” alleges he was
denied legal representation at the hearing, and further
alleges he was “bullied” into signing an order.
Id. at 3-4. Defendant seeks a private evaluation of
his mental health history to determine which medications he
should be taking, seeks revocation of the medical licenses of
all medical staff who have been involved in his treatment,
seeks to have prison guards fired, seeks monetary damages
from each defendant “personally, ” and would like
to have criminal charges filed against each defendant.
Id. at 4.
• In Case # 4, defendant purports to sue unidentified
defendants from FMC Butner and FMC Devens for medical
malpractice. Dkt. # 74, at 4-5. He alleges he was
“forcefully medicated” at both facilities, as
well as throughout a substantial period of his childhood, and
seeks an “immediate subpoena of all [of his] medical
records from childhood through adulthood, ” free copies
of his medical records, and “damages.”
Id.
• In Case # 5, defendant states that after Case # 1 is
resolved he intends to “lodge a complaint that the
cause of [his] defects and mutations, ” as described in
Case # 1, “was the overmedication of serotonin
inhibitors or amplifying drugs.” Dkt. # 74, at 5. In
this future case, defendant intends to seek monetary damages
and a court order directing officials to stop his ...