Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sandcrane v. Martinez

United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division

January 29, 2015

SHANE MICHAEL SANDCRANE, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERTO MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CAROLYN S. OSTBY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shane Sandcrane's Complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint, ECF 2 at 1. Sandcrane is a federal prisoner proceeding in forma paueris and without the assistance of counsel. He raises allegations against 84 defendants regarding his 2008 criminal proceedings, legislation and policies affecting Native Americans, his timely receipt of funds under the Cobell settlement, and his access to the courts. His allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the Complaint should be dismissed.

I. STATEMENT OF CASE

A. Prior Criminal Proceedings

Sandcrane was indicted on August 21, 2008 for aiding and abetting in a first degree murder. United States v. Sandcrane, 08-CR-101-BLG-SPW, ECF 1. On December 17, 2008, a superseding indictment was filed adding the charge of accessory after the fact. United States v. Sandcrane, 08-CR-101-BLG-SPW, ECF 15. On October 5, 2009, Sandcrane was charged under a superseding information with aiding and abetting in a second degree murder. Sandcrane plead guilty to this charge and was sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons for 540 months. United States v. Sandcrane, 08-CR-101-BLG-SPW, ECF 61. According to the Bureau of Prison's website, Sandcrane is set to be released in the year 2047. www/bop.gov (accessed January 27, 2015).

B. Allegations

1. Claims Regarding Criminal Proceedings

In Counts 1-4 and Count 6, Sandcrane challenges his criminal proceedings and conviction. He alleges that in May 2008, Defendants failed to provide investigative services in the same manner as would be rendered to non-Native Americans and caused material facts and exculpatory evidence to go "unearthed". Complaint, Count 1, ECF 2 at 4; Complaint, Count 3, ECF 2 at 6. He claims that in October 2009, Defendants subjected him to a federal prosecution and conviction without the benefit of exculpatory and mitigating evidence of sexual abuse as a child, diminished capacity, ADDHD, and a dysfunctional family environment and childhood. Complaint, Count 2, ECF 2 at 5. He alleges Defendants conspired to have him plead guilty without ensuring that he understood the charges against him. Complaint, Count 2, ECF 2 at 5. He alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights by allowing and causing him to be sentenced to 540 years without the benefit of exculpatory and mitigating evidence as contained in his sealed juvenile records. Complaint, Count 2, ECF 2 at 5-6. He alleges Defendants caused him to plead guilty to an offense of which he is innocent, failed to read him his Miranda rights, and caused him to enter into an unknowing and unintelligent guilty plea. Complaint, Count 3, ECF 2 at 7-8. Sandcrane also complains that in 2001, Defendants lowered the evidentiary threshold from plausible to viable for federal indictments involving Native Americans. Complaint, Count 4, ECF 2 at 9. He alleges his defense counsel conspired with the prosecuting attorney and did not advise him of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act and caused him to enter into an unknowing plea. Complaint, Count 6, ECF 2 at 12.

2. Claims regarding Legislation and Policies

In Counts 5, 7-9, and Counts 12-16, Sandcrane raises a number of generalized claims regarding legislation and policy decisions affecting Native Americans. He alleges that Senator Steve Daines in May 2014 threatened the Fort Peck Tribal Board members with withholding medical services, education services, Cobell payments, law enforcement funding water quality services, and oil regulation and guidances if the Fort Peck Tribes did not agree to give up the aforementioned rights and enter into agreements with the state and U.S. Governments. Complaint, Count 5, ECF 2 at 10. He alleges Senator Daines also violated his rights by making efforts to pass the Violence Against Women Act. He alleges the Act is based on racial animus toward Native Americans that will result in "enhanced sentences." He also faults Senator Daines for submitting the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. Complaint, Count 5, ECF 2 at 10.

He alleges Defendants conspired to usurp the oversight obligations of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to inspect his high risk Indian lands for water contamination and other environmental damage by wrongfully introducing a bipartisan bill and amendments to the Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2014. He alleges Defendants did so without monitoring inspection activities at their state and field offices and thus could not provide reasonable assurances that those offices were completing the required inspections. Complaint, Count 7, ECF 2 at 14-16.

Sandcrane alleges United States District Court Judge Brian Morris and other Defendants, in the case of Jackson v. Wolf Point, CV 13-65-GF-BMM-RKS, allowed gerrymandering voting districts through Montana that manipulates and produces a desired election result in favor of Defendants Tester, Bullock, Walso, Stafne, Kirn, and other officials amendable to legislation. Complaint, Count 8, ECF 2 at 17-18.

Sandcrane alleges Defendants violated his rights by subjecting him and other federally recognized enrolled tribal members to the 2010 Affordable Care Act in breach of their trust responsibilities of proving health care to tribal members. He also complains in detail about medical care on the reservations and that Defendants perpetrated "purchase referred care, " violating his right to health care. Complaint, Counts 9, 14, 16, ECF 2 at 20-27, 35-36.

Sandcrane alleges Defendants used Federal American Recovery & Reinvestment Act funds to build the Fort Peck Adult Detention Center for the purpose of perpetrating the illegal Tribal Law & Order Act, Violence Against Woman Act, Tribal State Cross Deputization Agreements without a statutory basis for relief in the state and federal habeas corpus scheme and causing Sandcrane to be denied rights without redress. Complaint, Count 12, ECF 2 at 32.

He alleges Defendants are "hydrofracking" on high risk Indian lands and on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation without monitoring and oversight by the Bureau of Land Management and with outdated guidance and sciences on oil and coal mining, well spacing, mineral trespass, interference of oil and coal mining activities, and drainage causing environmental harms and death of Indians in Indian Country. Complaint, Count 12, 32.

Sandcrane alleges Defendants implemented common core standards in Indian Country with the intent to lower the education standards and fail to prepare Native American students for college. He also alleges Defendants withheld Federal Johnson O'Malley Indian Education Funds from Native American students in Wolf Point, Montana to discourage Native American students from participating in sports, band, etc in a deliberate effort to deprive them ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.