Weeks v. Frank et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tayron T. Weeks
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-534-LM
Michael J. Frank
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tayron T. Weeks, proceeding without an attorney,
has filed a civil complaint seeking a $1.717 million “default
judgment” against the defendants — the United States of America
and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Frank – on the grounds
that they purportedly failed to respond to certain documents
filed by Weeks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. 	His complaint (Doc. No. 1) is before the
magistrate judge for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
I. 	Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a review of cases filed by plaintiffs
without counsel to determine, among other things, whether the
complaint states any claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). 	To survive
preliminary review, the complaint must contain “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 8

2
The court treats as true all well-pled factual allegations and
construes all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
See Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12-13 (1st
Cir. 2011). 	In doing so, the court may consider “documents
incorporated by reference in [the complaint], matters of public
record, and other matters susceptible to judicial notice.”
Giragosian v. Ryan, 547 F.3d 59, 65 (1st Cir. 2008) (citations
omitted). 	The court may dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s case at
any time if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, the defendant is immune from the relief
sought, or the action is frivolous or malicious. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
II. 	Background
Tayron Weeks is a 28-year-old man currently serving a 132-
month sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution, Berlin,
New Hampshire (“FCI Berlin”). 	In 2014, Weeks pled guilty in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to a one-
count criminal information charging him with sex trafficking of
a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b)(2), & (c).1
United States v. Weeks, No. 14-cr-313-TSE (E.D. Va.) (ECF Nos.
18, 19). 	In July 2019, four years after his sentencing, Weeks
1 The court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in
Weeks’s criminal proceedings. 	See Kowalski v. Gagne, 914 F.2d
299, 305 (1st Cir. 1990) (“It is well-accepted that federal
courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts
if those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.”).
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 2 of 8

3
filed an “affidavit” in the E.D. Va. proceeding declaring his
“nonconsent to incarceration.” 	Id. (ECF No. 50). 	Several
months later, he also filed in that matter a “judicial notice of
special deposit security instruments,” which declared, among
other things, “his rescission of signature” to his written plea
agreement because he was “misguided” when he entered into it.
Id. (ECF No. 53). 	In both filings, Weeks pressed several
arguments commonly raised by “sovereign citizens,” 2 including
that the U.S. District Courts lack jurisdiction over criminal
cases.
Though the E.D. Va. District Court initially construed
these filings as seeking a release from custody under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, Weeks objected to this construction, making it
inappropriate for the court to transform his notice into a
motion under § 2255. 	See Order, United States v. Weeks, No. 14-
cr-313-TSE (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2020) (ECF. No. 60, at 1, 4)
(“E.D. Va. Order”); Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003)
(requiring district courts to notify pro se litigants of their
intention to recharacterize pleadings, warn litigants of the bar
against second or successive motions under § 2255, and provide
2 “Sovereign citizens” are a loosely affiliated group who,
among other things, “believe they are not subject to federal or
state statutes or proceedings, reject most forms of taxation as
illegitimate, and place special significance in commercial law.”
United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10, 19 n.12 (1st Cir. 2012)
(internal citation omitted); Johnson v. Weare Police Dep’t, No.
12-CV-032-SM, 2013 WL 5740453, at *2 (D.N.H. Oct. 23, 2013).
Weeks does not identify as a sovereign citizen in his complaint.
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 3 of 8

4
litigants an opportunity to withdraw or amend their pleadings).
The E.D. Va. District Court ultimately ruled that, because Weeks
“did not seek to challenge his conviction or sentence under
§ 2255, there [was] no basis under which to consider” his
argument that he was “misguided” when he entered into his plea
agreement. 	E. D. Va. Order (ECF No. 60, at 5). 	Additionally,
it found that Weeks’s remaining sovereign citizenship claims had
been uniformly rejected by the federal courts, were frivolous,
and failed to state a claim that could afford him relief. 	Id.
at 5-6; see also Judgment of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
(ECF No. 70) (affirming the District Court’s denial of Weeks’s
requests for relief). 	Four days later, Weeks filed a civil
complaint in this court, asserting monetary claims based on his
E.D. Va. litigation. 	He does not appear to seek habeas relief.
III. Analysis
The district judge should dismiss Weeks’s complaint, as
even with a liberal construction, Weeks has not alleged facts
sufficient to confer this court with jurisdiction and,
alternatively, because there is no basis for granting the
monetary relief Weeks explicitly seeks. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1)&(6).
Simply put, Weeks seeks a “default judgment” in the amount
of $1.717 million against the defendants for having “failed to
serve and file any responses or otherwise respond” to the 2019
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 4 of 8

5
notice and affidavit he filed in his E.D. Va. litigation. 	See
Weeks Decl. (Doc. No. 1-2); Weeks 2019 Notice (Doc. No. 1-3);
Weeks Aff. (Doc. No. 1-3). 	In these filings, Weeks asserts that
he was forced or deceived to sign his written plea agreement,
“never consented to” his incarceration, and “was not afforded
due process of law due to the sworn fact that the United States
District Court . . . only has the authority to handle” civil,
and not criminal, matters. 	Weeks Aff. (Doc. No. 1-3, at 2). 	He
further contends, without any authentic evidentiary basis, that
the award of his requested monetary claim is “past due.” 	Id.
To the extent Weeks seeks to vacate his conviction through
these allegations, he has failed to allege facts showing that
this court has jurisdiction to consider such a claim.
Generally, challenges to a federal conviction or sentence must
be brought by a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district
where the prisoner was sentenced, here the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a);
Edwards v. Warden, FCI Berlin, No. 19-CV-1271-JD, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 83394, at *2, 2020 WL 2404886, at *1 (D.N.H. May 12,
2020). 	Under § 2255’s “savings clause,” this court may consider
post-conviction arguments challenging the legality of Weeks’s
detention only if he shows that “the remedy by motion [under
§ 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
[or her] detention.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). 	Weeks’s complaint,
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 5 of 8

6
however, makes no attempt to show that § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 	The district
judge should therefore dismiss Weeks’s complaint to the extent
he in fact seeks relief available, if at all, under § 2255.
Alternatively, if this court has jurisdiction, Weeks has
not alleged facts that could support a claim for non-habeas
forms of relief, including the $1.717 million monetary award he
seeks. 	To file suit against the United States or a federal
officer, a plaintiff must first show that his or her claim falls
within a recognized exception to sovereign immunity. 	Ironshore
Specialty Ins. Co. v. United States, 871 F.3d 131, 140 (1st Cir.
2017). 	Additionally, “to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,” the plaintiff must
demonstrate that his or her “conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus . . . .” 	Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487–88 (1994). 	Weeks’s civil complaint, even when
liberally construed, fails to satisfy either of these pleading
requirements. 	And publicly available records confirm that
Weeks’s conviction and sentence remain in full effect without
alteration by federal writ.
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 6 of 8

7
Weeks’s complaint – with its challenge to the U.S. District
Courts’ jurisdiction over criminal cases, its counter-factual
assertions of procedural default, and its reliance on documents
as legal tender – essentially repeats arguments sounding in
“sovereign citizenship” theories that have consistently been
found to lack “any basis in law or fact.” 	See Brown v. United
States, No. 1:16-MC-00040-GZS, 2016 WL 6585602, at *2 (D.N.H.
Oct. 13, 2016), R&R adopted, 2016 WL 6583616 (D.N.H. Nov. 7,
2016); In re Hayes, No. ADV 11-80731-JW, 2011 WL 4566378, at *3
(Bankr. D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2011) (aggregating sovereign citizen
cases, which have been consistently denied by the federal
courts). 	These frivolous arguments are further precluded by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel, which bars a party from
litigating an issue that was fully and fairly adjudicated either
in an earlier federal or state-court proceeding – here Weeks’s
E.D. Va. litigation. 	See Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. United
States, 850 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2017); Johnson v. Mahoney, 424
F.3d 83, 93 (1st Cir. 2005). 	Additionally, Weeks’s complaint
cannot be saved by further amendment with additional facts that
could cure these jurisdictional and sufficiency flaws.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the district judge should
dismiss Weeks’s complaint in its entirety without prejudice to
his ability to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 7 of 8

8
district where he was sentenced. 	Any objections to this Report
and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt
of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court's order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
_______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 26, 2021
cc: 	Tayron T. Weeks, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00534-LM Document 6 Filed 02/26/21 Page 8 of 8