Wright v. The United States of America, 3:11-cv-03032

Wright, a life-term prisoner, sues the United States and various federal actors in a pro se action.
He claims he is a sovereign by birth and invokes the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, seeking to challenge federal jurisdiction.
The court takes judicial notice of Wright’s prior criminal case (CR 06-30026) and related proceedings, including his 2007 conviction and life sentences.
Wright previously challenged jurisdiction via a §2255 petition; the district court recharacterized and denied it, and the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing.
The current action names judges, prosecutors, and federal agencies as defendants, asserting lack of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity defenses.
The court grants in forma pauperis status, but dismisses all claims and assesses the PLRA filing fee obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wright may proceed in forma pauperis	Wright contends indigent status permits filing without fees.	Defendants argue PLRA requirements apply and the action should be dismissed.	Granted; Wright may proceed in forma pauperis.
Whether Wright can sue on behalf of others	Wright asserts claims on behalf of himself and others (sovereign kin).	Non-attorneys may not represent others; Wright lacks authority to sue for others.	Claims construed as Wright’s-only; no representative suits allowed.
Whether the action is a second/successive §2255 petition	Wright challenges jurisdiction anew under federal law.	A successive petition requires §2244 certification; not satisfied here.	Dismissed as successive §2255 petition lacking certification.
Whether the Fort Laramie Treaty bad-men clause exempts Wright from federal prosecution	Treaty rights barred enforcement of federal criminal laws against Wright.	Clause does not exempt individuals from federal jurisdiction; Major Crimes Act governs.	No exemption; treaty clause not jurisdictional or protective against prosecution.
Whether judicial or prosecutorial immunity bars claims	Judges and prosecutors violated Wright’s rights; immunity should not apply.	Judicial immunity absolute; prosecutors have absolute immunity in initiating/presenting cases.	Judicial and prosecutorial immunity shielded; claims fail.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 F.3d 553 (U.S. 2007) (claims must plead enough to raise relief above speculative level)
Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657 (8th Cir. 1985) (liberal pleading standards but not for conclusory allegations)
Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of §1983 claims require facts showing state action and deprivation)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (functional approach to immunity analysis)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity in initiating/prosecuting case)