In the United States District Court
District of Wyoming
United States of America v. Stewart Miles Doty
Doty’s Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 153 Habeas corpus § 2255
Motion to Vacate
Page. 3. GROUND ONE: Mr. Doty is being illegally deprived of a substantial constitutional right, his liberty. Congress criminalized marijuana without compelling government reasons therefore without due process of law contravening the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.
Page. 6 RELIEF: To declare liberty is
freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress criminalizing marijuana was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Doty of his liberty without a compelling reason, without
due process of law contravening the 4th and 5th Amends. of the U. S. Constitution thus vacating his conviction and sentence . . .
[In] behalf of STEWART MILES DOTY
May 10, 2019
/s/ Michael J. Dee
ORDER DISMISSING § 2255 MOTION
A second defect of the § 2255 motion is that it conclusively shows Mr. Doty is entitled to no relief. The underlying premise of the motion - that the federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional - is without merit. The classification and criminalization of marijuana under federal law has been repeatedly held constitutional . . . There is no fundamental right to either possess marijuana or produce or distribute marijuana commercially . . . Thus, it would have been futile for Mr. Doty's attorney to have raised unconstitutionality of the marijuana laws. "Due process does not require the rote performance of futile exercises."
Dated this 16th day of May, 2019.
/s/ Scott W. Skavdah
United States District Judge
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
For the United States District Court
Rule 5. The Answer and The Reply.
(a) When Required. The respondent is not required to answer the motion unless a judge so orders.
(b) Contents. The answer must address the allegations in the motion.
Judge Skavdah’s Order to Dismiss is saying there is no substantial showing of the denial of Doty’s constitutional right of liberty within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). This is because marijuana is not a fundamental right.
Doty’s Ground One of his § 2255 Motion to Vacate has nothing to do with claiming marijuana is a fundamental right. Ground One is about Doty right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint by incarceration seeking habeas relief.
This was about Doty’s constitutional right of due process of law being willfully denied. Doty has a constitutional right to know the compelling reasons for Congress to proscribe marijuana that deprived him of his liberty, freedom from physical restraint.
Judge Skavdah ignores the fact that criminal (marijuana) laws are an Article III case and controversy. He ignores the fact that the operation and effects of government police power is the seizure of person and deprivation of the constitutional right of liberty. Denies Doty has suffered actual injury by the government.
Judge Skavdah violated his solemn oath to the Constitution by ignoring the allegation of Ground One in Doty’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
Being incarcerated, deprived of liberty, is a denial of a constitutional right. If the government is to respond to the allegations in the § 2255 Motion to vacate, an impartial court should also do so.