1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Roger Dale Godwin,

Defendant.

No. CR-17-01620-001-TUC-RCC (DTF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a letter that Defendant Roger Dale Godwin sent to this 

Court. (Doc. 111.) In his letter, Godwin alleges several claims against the personnel at his 

facility, specifically that he is being “targeted” and “harassed” by Corrections Officers and 

that his legal mail is being “seized” in violation of his constitutional rights. (Id. at 1.) 

Godwin also alleges that he is being forced to take medication and is being used “as a 

Ginnie [sic] Pig.” (Id. at 2.) He asks this Court to “have the FBI/USMS find out why there 

[sic] tampering” with his legal mail. (Id. at 1–2.) Godwin also makes mention of 

information regarding where thirty bodies are buried and asks the Court “to have (FBI) to 

come, speak w/ them, to (confess) were [sic] there’s (30) bodies buried.” (Id. at 2.) 

First, it is improper for a party to communicate directly with court personnel. Simply 

mailing a letter to the Clerk of Court, the judge, or any court personnel is unacceptable. 

This type of ex parte communication undermines the structure of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona (“Local Rules”); if permitted, these communications would cause ethical

dilemmas for the judiciary. See In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 192 (C.D. 

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 112 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cal. 1989). Any request for action by the Court must be in the form of a motion that 

complies the Local Rules.

Second, the Court does not have the authority to compel law enforcement agencies 

to investigate matters. See Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982) (affirming 

denial of a request for a writ of mandamus to compel the FBI to investigate plaintiff’s 

allegations of criminal violations of her civil rights because “[i]nitiation of a criminal 

investigation by the F.B.I. is clearly a discretionary act”). 

Finally, the Court, in its discretion, declines to construe the allegations in Godwin’s 

letter as a civil rights action. A prisoner should not be obligated to proceed with a civil 

rights action unless he clearly indicates that he wishes to do so. Civil rights actions by 

prisoners are subject to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, which imposes filing fee 

obligations for prisoners, requires the Court to sua sponte screen civil rights actions, and 

limits the number of in forma pauperis civil rights actions a prisoner can file. 

Moreover, even if this Court were to construe Godwin’s letter as a civil rights action, 

venue is not proper in the District of Arizona because all of the events alleged occurred at 

U.S.P. Terre Haute in Terre Haute, Indiana and all the individuals accused are located there. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).1If Godwin wants to pursue a civil rights claim based on his 

allegations, he should do so in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Terre Haute Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 94(b)(2). 

1 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a civil action may be brought in

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are 

residents of the State in which the district located; 

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that 

is the subject of the action is situated; or 

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as 

provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant 

is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such 

action.

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 112 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Godwin’s Motion to 

Investigate (Doc. 111) is DENIED.

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2021.

Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 112 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 3