Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Writing for the Court: SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: Civil Action 25 - 281 (SLS)
• Decision Date: 03 November 2025
• Citation: Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action 25 - 281 (SLS) (D. D.C. Nov 03, 2025)
• Parties: FREDRICK DWAYNE SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Criminal Law,Civil Procedure

1

FREDRICK DWAYNE SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 25 - 281 (SLS)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 3, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Eight years ago, Fredrick Spencer was indicted on two counts of money laundering. After a criminal trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, a jury acquitted him of all charges. He now brings this pro-se Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Department of Justice the Attorney General, the federal prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the federal judge involved in his trial. Mr Spencer alleges that he was tried without a valid grand jury indictment in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims on various grounds. Because Mr. Spencer's claims are either claim precluded, unsupported, or barred by absolute immunity the Court grants the Defendants' motions and dismisses this case.

BACKGROUND

The Court draws the facts, accepted as true, from the Plaintiff's Complaint and attachments. Wright v. Eugene & Agnes E. Meyer Found., 68 F.4th 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2023). And the Court also takes “judicial notice of public records from other court proceedings.” Lewis v. Drug Enf't Admin., 777 F.Supp.2d 151, 159 (D.D.C. 2011).

On September 18, 2007, a jury found Mr. Spencer “not guilty of two counts of money laundering” in a criminal trial before Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. United States v. Spencer, No. 07-cr-174, 2008 WL 4104693, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2008); United States v. Spencer, 592 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (“On May 21, 2007, a grand jury indicted four defendants: brothers Antwoyn, Derrick, and Frederick Spencer, and Jovan Gentle. Frederick Spencer was acquitted.”). A grand jury indictment of Mr. Spencer, alongside alleged co-conspirators, appears on the docket of that proceeding but without visible signatures from the prosecutor or the grand jury foreperson. United States v. Spencer, No. 07-cr-174, ECF No. 1 (D. Minn. May 21, 2007). Mr. Spencer alleges that this indictment was never actually “submitted to, and returned by a grand jury.” Compl. 2 (citing United States v. Spencer, No. 07-cr-174, ECF No. 1 (D. Minn. May 21, 2007)).

On March 24, 2023, Mr. Spencer brought a Bivens action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General alleging that his “2007 prosecution violated his [Fifth Amendment] rights because he had not been indicted by a grand jury.” Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 23-cv-724, 2023 WL 5178191, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 2023). Soon thereafter, Mr. Spencer emailed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota requesting the “signed grand jury indictment” and “a copy of the grand jury transcripts” from the 2007 proceedings. Opp'n to Oleiski Mot. Dismiss, Ex. B, ECF No. 16-1. The next day, an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) responded:

I've looked into this, and the practice in the District of Minnesota is for a redacted indictment, without any signatures, to be published on the electronic docket; but the original indictments, which are in fact signed by counsel for the Government and the grand jury foreperson, are on file with the Clerk of Court.... I can assure you that your indictment was, in fact, signed.

Id.

In August 2023, the District of Minnesota dismissed Mr. Spencer's Bivens action with prejudice, finding the following:

[T]he Court takes judicial notice that Spencer was indicted by a grand jury. This fact was even acknowledged by the Eighth Circuit on his co-defendants' appeal. Thus, Spencer's allegation that he was not indicted by a grand jury is not just implausible-it is plainly false.

Spencer, 2023 WL 5178191, at *2 (citations omitted). Mr. Spencer moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), arguing that “the lack of a docket entry” with “a signed grand jury indictment .... demonstrates [his] civil right to due process was violated” and that the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure were not followed. Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 23-cv-724, ECF No. 31 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2023). The district court denied the motion. See id., ECF No. 32 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2023). Mr. Spencer then appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. See Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 23-3048, 2024 WL 565452 (8th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).

Mr. Spencer now brings a Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in this District alleging again that the grand jury indictment from his 2007 proceeding was either fraudulent or defective in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See Compl. 2 (alleging the indictment was never actually submitted to a jury); Opp'n to U.S. Mot. 2, ECF No. 25 (alleging the indictment failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure's 6(f)'s requirement that a “grand jury's indictment must be returned in open court”). Mr. Spencer's Complaint requests only money damages and not injunctive relief. Compl. 2.

The Defendants in the instant action include two defendants from Mr. Spencer's earlier civil action in the District of Minnesota: the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Compl. 1. The Complaint also names three new Defendants involved in his criminal prosecution: Judge Tunheim (the presiding judge), Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Paulsen (the prosecutor), and Robert Oleiski (his private criminal defense attorney). Id. The Defendants all move to dismiss this action. Oleiski Mot., ECF No. 14; U.S. Mot., ECF No. 22. These motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. Opp'n to Oleiski Mot., ECF No. 16; Opp'n to U.S. Mot., ECF No. 25; Oleiski Reply, ECF No.18; U.S. Reply, ECF No. 26.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must dismiss a complaint that does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts “must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). But courts need not accept as true “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” nor an “inference[] . . . unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.'” Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

A pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up). “This benefit is not, however, a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 658 F.Supp.2d 135, 137 (D.D.C. 2009) (citation omitted). “Although a pro se complaint must be construed liberally, the complaint must still present a claim on which the Court can grant relief to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.” Smith v. Scalia, 44 F.Supp.3d 28, 36 (D.D.C. 2014) (cleaned up).

Although challenges to jurisdiction are usually addressed first, “courts may address certain non[-]jurisdictional, threshold issues before examining jurisdictional questions” when they lead to “dismissal short of reaching the merits.” Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 896 F.3d 501, 513 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). Assertions of absolute immunity by government officers are among these threshold issues. See Gage v. New Jersey, No. 18-cv-1226, 2019 WL 1409935, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2019).

And Rule 12(b)(6) is still the proper mechanism to dismiss a claim that is barred by absolute official immunity. See Smith, 44 F.Supp.3d at 40 (Jackson, J.).

DISCUSSION

The Government Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. Mot. 1. Mr. Oleiski moves to dismiss Mr. Spencer's claims against him under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Oleiski Mot. 5. The Court grants both motions under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismisses Mr Spencer's claims. The claims against the Department of Justice and the Attorney Generalare barred by claim preclusion. The claims against Mr. Oleiski are entirely unsupported. And the claims against Judge Tunheim and Assistant U.S. Attorney Paulsen are barred by absolute immunity.^[1]

A. Claims Against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorney General

The doctrine of claim preclusion bars Mr. Spencer's claims against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Claim preclusion “forecloses subsequent litigation where there has been prior adjudication ‘(1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies, and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the merits, (4) by a court of competent jurisdiction.'” Steele v. United States, 144 F.4th 316, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “The bar [] extends not only to claims that were actually litigated, but also to those that should or could have been.” Id. at 325. Accordingly, claim preclusion “prevents litigation of all grounds for . . . recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding” so long as those claims “arise from the same transaction” or “involve a common nucleus of operative facts.” Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., 590 U.S. 405, 412 (2020) (cleaned up).

Here the District of Minnesota entered a final judgment dismissing...