Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Simpson v. United States

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

May 16, 2017

LOUIS SIMPSON, Petitioner,



         Before the Court is the Petitioner's, Louis Simpson, Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 3). For the following reasons, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED and the matter is dismissed.

         I. Background

         The Petitioner, Louis Simpson, originally filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, requesting that the Court compel a United States Attorney in this district to take some action on his behalf. The Court transferred the Petition to the Court of Appeals in a Text Order, and the Court of Appeals subsequently remanded the § 1361 Writ of Mandamus to the Court. The Court of Appeals noted that § 1361 provides that the Court “shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” (Doc. 2). Accordingly, the Petition (Doc. 3)[1] is currently pending before this Court.

         Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Federal Prison Camp in Pekin, Illinois. In 2009, a jury convicted the Petitioner seven counts of wire fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. At sentencing, the Court imposed a total term of imprisonment of 183 months, and later ordered Simpson to pay $1, 005, 136.18 in restitution. (Doc. 6, App. C & App. F). According to the Petitioner, in June 2016 his wife requested assistance from the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. According to the Petitioner Simpson, he filed a written complaint with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in January 2015, and a subsequent investigation by the OIG revealed that Simpson is innocent of all charges alleged in his superseding indictment due to gross professional misconduct committed by the prosecution team involved in his criminal case. Simpson was able to obtain a redacted summary report of the OIG investigation, which he claims revealed the following offenses: false statement, job performance failure, and non-DOJ professional misconduct. Further, the redacted report listed Simpson's United States magistrate judge as an associated person; Simpson maintains that the magistrate judge reviewed and erroneously denied his § 2255 habeas motion in a recommended order.[2] The OIG report shows the date of occurrence as 6/11/2008, the date of Simpson's original criminal grand jury indictment. Simpson argues that this evidence proves that his grand jury proceedings were tainted, unfairly prejudiced him, and violated his due process rights; moreover, the evidence substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict.

         Simpson argues that the prosecutor clearly lacked probable cause to charge and obtain an indictment from the grand jury and used fabricated evidence, and the lead witness's testimony constituted perjury. Simpson also raises the issue that U.S. Benefits Plus, LP, the victim, did not legally exist at the time of the alleged offenses for which he was found guilty. Simpson requests that the Court order the following:

A. The U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois comply with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct § 3.8(g) and (h) by promptly disclosing documents of the OIG investigation, OIG Case No. DA-007-2015-10442-M to the Court;
B. Seek to remedy the Petitioner's conviction by any lawful means appropriate to obtain defendant's immediate release, once the disclosed evidence shows his innocence of any and all offenses alleged in his superseding indictment;
C. For the prosecutor to request the Court to appoint counsel for Simpson; and
D. For the Court to review the grand jury transcripts.

(Doc. 3, p. 11-12).

         The government responds that the United States is entitled to sovereign immunity, Simpson's Petition suffers from serious legal deficiencies, and is meritless because it is based on false representation to the Court. First the government brings to the Court's attention Simpson's direct appeal and his § 2255 motion which was denied by the Eastern District of Texas. In his direct appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence, including the issues he raised relating to his jury instructions and the restitution order. In his § 2255 motion, he raised several issues duplicate of the ones in his current Petition: U.S. Benefits Plus, LP did not exist, the bank statements were erroneously admitted, improper charge and jury instructions, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, false statements at the Grand Jury, ineffective assistance of counsel, and actual innocence. The motion was denied in March 2015. According to the government and the accompanying exhibits, during the pendency of his § 2255 motion, Simpson filed an interlocutory appeal from stay orders, which were dismissed, and a mandamus action, which was denied. The Fifth Circuit also denied his motion for a certificate of appealability.

         Further, the government responds that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), also of the Department of Justice, has twice reviewed claims Simpson made to the OIG. The OPR sent written notice to Simson that no action on his claims was warranted. Thus, the government argues that the Petitioner's ...

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.