Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00862/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Wayne Eggers
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

MICHAEL WAYNE EGGERS, 

PLAINTIFF, 

VS. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

DEFENDANT. 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 

The court has before it the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. # 1)' filed 

May 2,2006, the motion (Doc. #2) to proceed informapauperis, and the motion 

(Doc. #3) seeking permission to supply to the court only one copy of a multi-page 

appendix. The factual background of the petition begins in 1985 in California 

when petitioner was detained by deputy sheriffs of the San Bernardino County 

Sheriffs Department (led by Detective Wayne Smith Leo) along with 

investigators of the FBI. He alleges that events occurring in connection with that 

detention caused or magnified psychological problems entitling him to protection 

under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 1 8 U.S.C. tj 1 50 1 - 1 5 1 8 

----------------- ------- - - - - - - - - 

----- 

I Petitioner expressly asserts that his document is "NOT A HABEAS CORPUS". 

FILED

 2006 May-09 PM 04:37

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00862-JHH Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 4
because he was an informant for law enforcement agencies. Moving forward to 

December of 2002, petitioner was arrested (apparently in Walker County, 

Alabama) by FBI agents, subsequently charged with two counts of capital murder 

in the Circuit Court of Walker County, and convicted of capital murder associated 

with the death of Beanie Frances Murray. He currently is in custody of the 

Alabama Department of Corrections. Petitioner asserts that federal agents violated 

his constitutional rights during his apprehension and the proceedings associated 

with the capital murder charges. He alleges that the State of Alabama and the 

federal government suppressed evidence apparently related to the events occurring 

in California in and subsequent to 1985 and that they failed to provide assistance 

to him under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982. Apparently he 

sought assistance fiom federal employees to help him with an insanity defense he 

raised in the Circuit Court of Walker County. Petitioner alleges that he was not 

found credible as "he had no evidence to support his allegations." He hrther 

alleges that: 

Evidence was suppressed by the federal agencies, false statements, 

perjured testimony, false documentation and government 

manipulation was utilized by these agents in their representation of 

these agencies to cover up and protect said agencies and obtain an 

unlawful conviction. 

Case 2:06-cv-00862-JHH Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 4
Petitioner asserts that the Writ of Mandamus should issue because "The 

federal agencies have refused to investigate assertions made by the petitioner with 

respect to 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 15 12.'' He also asserts: 

The attorney general has refused to provide legal assistance, 

competent within the scope of such subject matter as per Title 28 

USC 509, fj 574,s 515(a), fj 576,s 577, fj 518(b) and fj 519 as the 

petitioner was in fact an employee under the definitions of Title 28 

USC 2671 "A person acting on behalf of a federal agency in an 

official capacity, temporarily or permanantly in the service of the 

United States, whether with or without compensation" and such 

psychological hardships were derived from such services and 

intimidation thereafter which led to the wrongkl death of an innocent 

individual, which should have prompted an investigation and changed 

jurisdiction as per Title 28 USC €j 1346,28 USC 133 1 .(sic) 

Section 1915A of Title 28 requires a court to review "a civil action in which 

a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity." Upon review, the court is required to dismiss the complaint 

if it is frivolous or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Viewing all documents filed with the court as petitioner's complaint, neither the 

complaint nor any portion thereof states a cognizable claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Further, the complaint is wholly frivolous. 

Case 2:06-cv-00862-JHH Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 4
A separate order will be entered denying the motion (Doc. #2) to proceed in 

forma pauperis, granting the motion (Doc. #3) to supply one copy of a multi-page 

appendix, and dismissing this action. 

DONE this the 7 iL- day of May, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cv-00862-JHH Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 4 of 4