United States v. Weiler

          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 ...