Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER ORVILLE MYERS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CR 03-177 LRR-TJS

COMBINED ORDER

Currently there are pending, and subject to this order, 68 separate motions, most filed pro
se, by Defendant Christopher Orville Myers. Many of these motions are duplicates of each other, and in
a number of instances these motions are reiterations of earlier motions that defendant has filed pro se.
At the outset, the Court would note that the sheer volume of the motions filed by defendant
in his pro se capacity is sometimes overwhelming to the Clerk of Court’s office. The Court has earlier issued
Case Management Orders requiring defendant when he files pro se motions to follow local rules, and to write
on only one side of the page; using 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper, and write only in blue or black ink. For the most
part, defendant has complied with those directives.
The Court will not issue separate rulings on each motion, but will combine its rulings in this
order, setting out each individual motion by the clerk’s number:
1. Clerk’s No. 503. This motion was filed by defendant’s stand-by counsel, Nicholas
Drees.

It is denied as being moot since it sought to have defendant returned from the Metropolitan

Correctional Center in Los Angeles, California to this district. Defendant has been released from the
Metropolitan Correctionalfacility, and is currently being housed at the Corrections Center of America (CCA)
facility in Leavenworth, Kansas.

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 8

2. Clerk’s No. 505. This is plaintiff’s pro se request for an emergency hearing regarding
his detention at the FederalCorrections Center in Los Angeles, during which time he was undergoing a mental
evaluation. This motion is now denied as moot.
3. Clerk’s No. 507. This is a pro se motion, submitted through defendant’s stand-by
counsel, regarding defendant’s claims that the Polk County Sheriff’s Department would not provide him with
legal materials at the Polk County Jail. This motion is denied as being moot since defendant is no longer
housed in that facility.
4. Clerk’s No. 511.

This is a motion or request to be transferred to the Newton

Correctional facility. This motion is denied. The motion correctly points out that defendant is currently held
at the CCA facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, also and claims he is being denied access to legal supplies. The
issue of legal supplies has been dealt with by the Court, and adequate directives have been initiated in that
regard. The transfer of defendant to the CCA facility in Leavenworth, Kansas is within the discretion of the
United States Marshal Service. This has been necessitated in large part by defendant’s own actions at
various facilities, including but not limited to the Muscatine County Jail, the Polk County Jail and the Newton
Correctional Facility. Defendant’s motion is denied.
5. Clerk’s No. 515. In this motion, defendant claims the CCA officers have refused to
feed defendant and provide him with medications. The Court has discussed these issues with CCA officials,
the United States Marshal Service, and the government’s attorney, along with defendant’s stand-by attorney
in open Court, and is satisfied that plaintiff is being adequately cared for, and that his hygiene items, as well
as medications, as required by prescription, are being provided to defendant. This motion is denied.

-2-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 8

6. Clerk’s No. 515. This pro se motion alleges, again, that CCA officials are refusing to
comply with the orders entered by the undersigned magistrate judge. For the reasons set forth in the ruling
as to Clerk’s No. 511, this motion is and shall be denied.
7. Clerk’s Nos. 516 and 532. Clerk’s No. 516 is defendant’s pro se motion challenging
Dr. Ihle’s report. Clerk’s No. 532 is a pro se motion to have the Court order subpoenas issued regarding
the competency hearing. Both these motions are denied as being moot. The Court has granted stand-by
counsel’s motion to withdraw the motion for competency hearing.
See, Order (Clerk’s No. 574).
8. Clerk’s Nos. 517, 520 and 538. These three motions are all interrelated. Clerk’s No.
517, again, is a motion by defendant wanting a monthly stipend in the amount of $350 for legal supplies, as
well as ink pens, paper, folders, envelopes, exhibit labels, etc.; Clerk’s No. 520 is defendant’s request to hire
two private investigators, in addition to the investigators already working on defendant’s behalf from the
Federal Defender’s Office; Clerk’s No. 538 also seeks funds to allow defendant to hire private investigators.
All these motions are denied. Defendant has previously been a beneficiary of numerous orders by both
District Judge Linda R. Reade and the undersigned magistrate judge, ordering that he be provided legal
materials, including writing instruments, paper, envelopes and stamps. The fact that the Federal Defender’s
Office has utilized its own investigators, and continue to do so, serves as abundant substantiation for denying
defendant’s motion to be allowed to hire private investigators. Notwithstanding those facts, it is impossible
for defendant in his current situation to even be able to communicate with, or direct, an appropriate
investigation by any privately retained investigators.

-3-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 4 of 8

9. Clerk’s No. 518. This motion was sealed, without Court order, by defendant, and
alleges, inter alia, that CCA officials have denied defendant medical treatment. The Court is satisfied, based
upon its inquiries to the United States Marshal Service, both within open Court proceedings and without that
defendant is not being mistreated medically at the CCA facility in Leavenworth. This motion shall be and is
denied.
10. Clerk’s Nos. 519, 528, 530, 536, 549, 557 and 562. All these motions deal with
defendant’s pro se request to fire current stand-by counsel, Nicholas Drees, and to hire a second stand-by
counsel. All these motions are denied. Defendant has periodically requested that the Court remove Mr.
Drees, only to then rescind his request. Mr. Drees is not defendant’s first stand-by counsel, but he will be
the last stand-by counsel. Defendant, again, has shown no basis for the extreme relief he seeks. Mr. Drees
is very familiar with this case; he is very familiar with all the facts; and he has dealt quite well with defendant
throughout the current proceedings. All these motions are denied.
11. Clerk’s Nos. 525, 550 and 563. These three motions allege torture of defendant by
CCA officials at the Leavenworth facility. These motions are denied to the extent that defendant has proven
none of these allegations, even though he continues to allege such adverse treatment whenever he is required
to abide by the rules of the facility in which he is then being housed. The Court would note that it does not
endorse or countenance, or in any way approve any inappropriate, inhumane or illegal methods of detention
and/or discipline. Having said that, the Court would note that it has discussed at length these issues with the
United States Marshal Service, and is satisfied that the marshal service is adequately monitoring defendant’s
situation at the Leavenworth facility.

-4-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 5 of 8

12. Clerk’s No. 542. In this motion, defendant consents to move his case to Rock Island,
Illinois, which pursuant to statute can properly be the location of this trial, or to Sioux City, Iowa, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Defendant previously withdrew his consent
to have this case proceed in the Central District of Illinois. This case is now set for trial on July 5, 2005, at
the United States Courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa. See, Order of Judge Reade (Clerk’s No. 612). For
that reason alone, this motion is denied.
13. Clerk’s No. 529. In this pro se motion, defendant raises a valid issue. The Court
agrees with defendant that he is entitled to maintain attorney/client privilege with Nicholas Drees. To this
extent, defendant’s motion is granted, and neither shall any officials and/or officers at CCA, Leavenworth,
Kansas, nor the United States Marshal Service in any way compromise, impinge upon or infringe defendant’s
right to communicate with legal counsel. On the other hand, defendant cannot expect the marshal service or
the officers at CCA, Leavenworth, Kansas, to alter security measures and/or appropriate policies pertaining
to his detention simply because defendant may believe that these policies or methods are invasive of the
attorney/client privilege.

To the extent that defendant can document threatened intrusions upon

attorney/client privilege, or actual invasion of such privilege. The Court will consider ordering appropriate
relief. For these reasons the motion is denied, without prejudice, but with the caveat contained herein.
14. Clerk’s Nos. 532 and 535. These two motions deal with defendant’s pro se request
to have subpoenas issued for a competency hearing and his own earlier motion for a hearing on his
competency. These motions are denied as being moot in light of the Court’s ruling in Clerk’s No. 574,
granting the motion to withdraw the motion for hearing on defendant’s competency.

-5-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 6 of 8

15. Clerk’s No. 533. This motion, pro se, requests that the Court order the United States
Marshal Service to transport defendant to all proceedings, rather than having officials from CCA,
Leavenworth, Kansas be responsible for such transportation. The motion is denied. The marshal service
determines the method of transportation, and the Court is satisfied that the marshal service has reviewed these
issues, and will continue to monitor the services provided by CCA regarding transportation of defendant to
necessary hearings in this district.
16. Clerk’s Nos. 534, 537, 539, 548, 556, 572, 575 and 580. These motions, inter alia,
allege that CCA officials in Leavenworth, Kansas have mistreated and/or tortured defendant, including but
not limited to punitive actions taken against him, and refusing to allow him to have legal materials. These
motions are all denied. The Court has dealt with the issue of legal materials being delivered to defendant at
the Leavenworth facility, much of which has been accomplished through defendant’s stand-by attorney. The
Court is satisfied, based upon its discussions with the United States Marshal Service, that CCA officials have
not tortured defendant, and that appropriate policies consistent with the rules and regulations of the United
States Marshal Service for a contract facility are being implemented.
17. Clerk’s No. 545. This motion deals with matters pertaining to competency issues.
It is denied as being moot pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Clerk’s No. 574.
18. Clerk’s Nos. 547 and 551. These two motions again deal with defendant’s repeated
complaints about the lack of legal materials, writing materials and related tangible items. These motions are
denied as being moot. The Court has repeatedly ruled on these issues, and is satisfied that defendant is in
possession of appropriate legal materials, writing materials, writing instruments and related documents. The
Court recognizes that defendant believes that he should have an unlimited amount of legal materials delivered
-6-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 7 of 8

to him, currently comprising of approximately 34 “banker boxes,” but the Court disagrees.

Earlier

examinations of claimed legal materials determined contraband items were included within boxes that
defendant claimed to contain only private documents. For these reasons, the Court has deliberately limited
what defendant can have, the amount of what he can have, and has directed that those materials be delivered
to defendant by or through his stand-by counsel. These motions are denied.
19. Clerk’s Nos. 554 and 596. In these motions, pro se, defendant seeks to have the
Court order the Clerk of Court to provide defendant, at the Court’s expense, copies of numerous exhibits
which, for the most part, consist of prior civil cases that defendant has filed in this Court. The motions are
denied. Defendant has made no showing of any type or nature as to why these civil case filings have any
relevancy whatsoever to do with any aspect of this case.
20. Clerk’s No. 555. In this motion, defendant requests clarification of two orders entered
September 2, 2004 by District Judge Linda R. Reade (Clerk’s Nos. 464 and 465). This motion is denied.
The issue of competency and psychiatric examination has been concluded by virtue of the granting of the
motion to withdraw the motion for hearing on competency. See, Court’s order of April 11, 2005 (Clerk’s
No. 611). Further, defendant has now undergone two forensic evaluations which have established his
competency.
21. Clerk’s No. 556. This motion seeks to have the Court issue a written order
memorializing the minute entry order of January 25, 2005 at Clerk’s No. 514. This motion is denied.
Defendant here seeks to again delve into matters relating to a competency hearing, which have now been
resolved.

-7-

 Case 3:03-cr-00177-JAJ-TJS Document 614 Filed 04/18/05 Page 8 of 8

22. Clerk’s No. 557. Defendant seeks to have the Court order funds be made available
to him for the purchase of legal supplies and related materials. This motion is denied. The Court has made
arrangements to have any necessary legal supplies made available to defendant through his stand-by counsel.
To the extent necessary, the Court will reimburse stand-by counsel for those expenditures. Defendant shall
not be provided separate funds.
23. Clerk’s Nos. 544 and 582 through 591; 597 through 610. All these motions deal with
defendant’s pro se requests for Writs of Habeas Corpus relating to witnesses for competency hearings.
These motions are denied as being moot pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Clerk’s No. 611.
24. Clerk’s No. 595. In this motion, defendant seeks to have the Court enter a temporary
restraining order against CCA officials at the Leavenworth facility. This is a civil remedy, and not properly
brought as part of a criminal case. The motion is denied as being improperly joined in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2005.

-8-