Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 154

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLIVEN BUNDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HONORABLE JEFF B. SESSIONS, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America
on behalf of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Washington, DC and
Las Vegas, NV
And
THE HONORABLE ROBIN C. ASHTON, in her official
capacity as Director of the Office of Professional
Responsibility on behalf of the OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY of the United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
And
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ, in his
official capacity as the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice on behalf of the OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL of the United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
And
THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, in his
official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on behalf of the FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Washington, DC and
Las Vegas, NV
Defendants.

1

COMPLAINT FOR
EMERGENCY WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 154

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Cliven Bundy (“Mr. Bundy”) brings this action against Defendants the

Honorable Jeff B. Sessions (“Mr. Sessions”) in his official capacity as Attorney General of the
United States of America on behalf of the United States Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), the
Honorable Robin C. Ashton (“Ms. Ashton”) in her official capacity as Director of the Office of
Professional Responsibility on behalf of the Office of Professional Responsibility of the United
States Department of Justice (“OPR”), the Honorable Michael E. Horowitz (“Mr. Horowitz”) in
his official capacity as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice on behalf of the Office
of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice (“IG”), and the Honorable
Christopher A. Wray (“Mr. Wray”) in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) (collectively
“Defendants”) seeking an emergency writ of mandamus and injunctive relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1361 compelling Defendants to conduct an expedited investigation into the bad faith
and gross prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by the USDOJ and the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Nevada in United States of America v. Bundy, et al, 2:16-cr-00046 (D. Nev.) (the
“Bundy Prosecution”), and the FBI, as a well as a temporary restraining order and preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief.
II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction)
2.

Venue is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (3) in

that Defendants reside here and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
///

2

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 154

III.

PARTIES
Plaintiff
3.

Cliven Bundy is an individual, natural person, who at all material times was and is

a citizen and resident of Nevada
Defendants
4.

Defendant Mr. Sessions is being sued in his official capacity as Attorney General

of the United States of America on behalf of the United States Department of Justice.
5.

Defendant Ms. Ashton is being sued in her official capacity as Director of the

Office of Professional Responsibility on behalf of the United States Department of Justice.
6.

Defendant Mr. Horowitz is being sued in his official capacity as Inspector

General on behalf of the United States Department of Justice.
7.

Defendant Mr. Wray is being sued in his official capacity as Director of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
IV.

STANDING
8.

Plaintiff has standing to bring this action because he has been directly affected

and victimized by the unlawful conduct complained herein. Their injuries are proximately related
to the conduct of Defendants, each and every one of them.
V.

FACTS
9.

Mr. Bundy has been incarcerated since February of 2016 – approximately one

year and nine months - on charges stemming from a standoff with Bureau of Land Management
(“BLM”) and FBI agents, where Mr. Bundy’s family members were brutally assaulted and his
cattle killed and buried in secret mass graves by BLM and FBI agents.

3

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 4 of 154

10.

Neither Mr. Bundy nor any of his supporters harmed any BLM or FBI agents in

any way.
11.

The charges levied against Mr. Bundy are serious enough that he faces the

possibility of life imprisonment, if convicted.
12.

Since Mr. Bundy’s incarceration, the USDOJ, the U.S. Attorney for the District of

Nevada, the FBI and the BLM have engaged in an ongoing, continuing and concerted pattern of
bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct, carefully calculated to deprive Bundy and his codefendants of their constitutional, statutory, and other rights and to make it easier for them to
obtain a conviction.
13.

The repeated bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct left Mr. Bundy with no

choice but to file a Request for Investigation to the OPR and the IG on August 21, 2017 along
with a supplement on August 23, 2017, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and
are incorporated herein by reference. These Exhibits detail the prosecuting attorneys’ and the
FBI’s and BLM’s repeated and concerted pattern and practice of engaging in bad faith and gross
misconduct and are incorporated herein by reference.
14.

Since the Request for Investigation and accompanying supplement were

submitted, the OPR and IG have refused to confirm whether there is an ongoing investigation, or
even whether they received the documents. It is clear that they have collectively buried any bona
fide investigations.
15.

Thus, the OPR and IG have ignored Mr. Bundy’s bona-fide Request for

Investigation and accompanying supplement and will not conduct an investigation without the
judicial intervention that is being requested now.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 5 of 154

16.

Furthermore, on November 6, 2017, counsel for Mr. Bundy in the Bundy

Prosecution filed an Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Discovery Misconduct. Exhibit C.
17.

As set forth in this motion, the totality of which is incorporated herein by

reference, “[d]uring the testimony of witness Mary Hinson, it was revealed that a ‘live video
feed’ depicting the Bundy home, and ingress and egress from the home, was being piped into the
BLM ‘Command Center’ during the events in question.” Exhibit C at 5. “The existence of this
video surveillance has never been disclosed to the defense. No copy of the video has been
produced pursuant to the government’s affirmative duty to disclosure relevant and material
evidence to the defense…. The defense first learned of the actual existence of such facts and
evidence on November 3, 2016, after trial had already begun.” Id. (emphasis in original). 1
18.

In response to the motion, the prosecution was forced to produce additional

discovery, which had never before been produced, on November 7, 2017. This additional
discovery is detailed in counsel for Mr. Bundy’s Supplement to Emergency Motion to Dismiss
for Discovery Misconduct, which is being filed under seal and attached hereto as Exhibit D, and
which is being incorporated herein in totality by reference. 2
19.

Any assertions by the USDOJ and the FBI that evidence has not been hidden,

buried, and or/destroyed simply cannot be taken at face value, given the fact that the FBI has
recently repeatedly been found to have secreted evidence in a number of other high profile
matters.

1

David Montero, Nevada standoff trial postponed as judge orders search for surveillance video,
LA Times, Nov. 7, 2017, available at: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-bundy-trial20171107-story.html.
2 Because this Supplement contains privileged material and was in fact filed under seal in the
Bundy Prosecution, it will be filed separately in this matter along with an accompanying motion
to seal.
5

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 6 of 154

20.

By way of just a few examples, the FBI was found to have been hiding documents

for years pertaining to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents regarding a
meeting between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch on
an airport tarmac. 3
21.

Furthermore, the FBI has refused to produced documents pertaining to former FBI

Director James Comey’s memos documenting his conversations with President Trump, which
has in turn led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.4 These are just a few of
the numerous examples of the USDOJ and the FBI in particular’s concerted pattern and practice
of hiding, burying, and/or destroying documents and evidence during the time that James Comey
was director of the FBI. Comey was director of the FBI during the time period material to this
action.
22.

Mr. Bundy is now being tried, and possibly convicted and sentenced to life

imprisonment as a direct result of bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by
the USDOJ, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, and the FBI, which is now confirmed
to include the hiding, burying, and/or destroying of potentially exculpatory evidence.
23.

It is a great miscarriage of justice to allow the bad faith and gross prosecutorial

misconduct set forth in the Complaint for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief to
continue and not conduct a thorough, expedited investigation to ensure that Mr. Bundy and his
co-defendants receive a fair trial, pursuant to their rights under the Constitution of the United
States.

3
4

American Center for Law and Justice v. U.S. Department of Justice, 1:16-cv-2188 (D.D.C).
Cable News Network, Inc. et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., 1:17-cv-01175 (D.D.C).
6

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 7 of 154

24.

Trial is scheduled to begin with opening statements on Tuesday, November 15,

2017 and Mr. Bundy still does not have the potentially exculpatory evidence that has been
hidden, buried, and/or destroyed by the prosecuting attorneys, the FBI and the BLM.
25.

Failing to act immediately would unjustly permit the the USDOJ, the U.S.

Attorney for the District of Nevada, and the FBI and the BLM to get away with its bad faith and
gross prosecutorial misconduct and its destruction and withholding of exculpatory evidence,
causing the loss of due process, equal protection and other constitutional rights to Mr. Bundy.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandamus
26.

Mr. Bundy repeats and re-alleges all of the previous allegations of the entirety of

this Complaint for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief with the same force and
effect, as if fully set forth herein again at length. 

27.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, “[t]he district 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.”
28.

Mr. Bundy has requested that the IG and the OPR conduct an investigation into

instances of bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by the USDOJ, the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Nevada, and the FBI, where he faces the possibility of life
imprisonment.
29.

The IG and OPR have refused to confirm that an investigation is underway, or

even that they received Mr. Bundy’s bona-fide request for investigation and supplement
30.

This Court must, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, in the nature of mandamus,

compel Defendants to conduct an immediate, thorough investigation into the bad faith and gross

7

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 8 of 154

prosecutorial misconduct set forth in this Complaint for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and
Injunctive Relief and the Exhibits hereto.
31.

When Defendants’ investigation confirms that bad faith and gross prosecutorial

misconduct did occur, Mr. Bundy respectfully requests an order compelling Attorney General
Jeff Sessions and the USDOJ to order dismissal or withdraw the charges against Mr. Bundy in
the Bundy Prosecution.5
VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against Defendant as follows:
(a)

A writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to conduct an immediate,

thorough investigation into the bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct set forth in
this Complaint for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief and the Exhibits
hereto and compelling Attorney General Sessions and the USDOJ to order dismissal or
withdraw the charges against Mr. Bundy in the Bundy Prosecution when Defendants’
investigation confirms the aforementioned bad faith and gross prosecutorial misconduct.
(b)

A temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper.
(c)

Mr. Bundy reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Complaint

for Emergency Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Relief
///

5

See United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a district court
should dismiss an indictment on the ground of outrageous government conduct if it amounts to a
violation of the defendant’s due process rights). “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of
evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is
material to either guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the
prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87(1963)

8

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 9 of 154

Dated: November 9, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
KLAYMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (561)-558-5536
Email: leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

9

 Case 1:17-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 154

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLIVEN BUNDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HONORABLE JEFF B. SESSIONS, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America
on behalf of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Washington, DC and
Las Vegas, NV
And
THE HONORABLE ROBIN C. ASHTON, in her official
capacity as Director of the Office of Professional
Responsibility on behalf of the OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY of the United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
And
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ, in his
official capacity as the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice on behalf of the OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL of the United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
And
THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, in his
official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on behalf of the FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Washington, DC and
Las Vegas, NV
Defendants.

1

COMPLAINT FOR
EMERGENCY WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF