Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Dwight Campbell, Petitioner

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 24-3039

IN RE: DWIGHT CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Nos. 3:20-cv-00151 & 3:20-cv-00228)

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21

on December 27, 2024

Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 8, 2025)

OPINION*

PER CURIAM

Dwight Campbell, an inmate at SCI Huntingdon, has filed a petition for a writ of man­

damus. Campbell has filed suits in federal court claiming injuries related to his child cus­

tody and criminal proceedings in Blair County, Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.

those suits, and we later affirmed those dismissals. See CA Nos. 22-1894 & 22-1903. His

mandamus petition presents a sprawling narrative of his negative interactions with law en­

forcement in Blair County from 2015 to 2022, but the only relief he requests from this

Court is to facilitate the filing of criminal charges against the listed defendants. We will

deny the petition.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a party has no other adequate

means to obtain the desired relief, the party’s right to the relief is “clear and indisputable,”

and “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S.

183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).

Mandamus relief is clearly not warranted here. There is no clear and indisputable right

to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings. Linda R.S. v. Roland D., 410

U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 173-74 (3d Cir.

1973) (explaining that the government is permitted some selectivity in its enforcement of

criminal laws). And though Campbell cites the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) in his

petition, he has not been denied any right under the CVRA that could form the basis for

mandamus relief in this Court because his only request in the petition is for this Court to

facilitate a prosecution—an action which is contrary to the statute. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771(d)(6) (“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial dis­

cretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.”); cf In re Wild, 994

F.3d 1244, 1257 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that § 3771(d) “does not create a private right

of action by which a victim can initiate a freestanding lawsuit, wholly unconnected to any

preexisting criminal prosecution”).

2

Furthermore, to the extent that Campbell objects generally to the District Court’s dis­

missal of his related civil complaints, a petition for writ of mandamus is not a substitute

for an appeal, see Gillette v. Prosper, 858 F.3d 833, 841 (3d Cir. 2017), and in any event,

he has already appealed those dismissals in this Court and lost. See CA Nos. 22-1894 &

22-1903. And to the extent that Campbell seeks this Court’s intervention in any of the

pending or completed state court criminal actions in which he is a defendant, we lack au­

thority to grant such relief. See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (explain­

ing that, ordinarily, federal courts of appeal “lack appellate jurisdiction over their state

counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally inappropriate”); White v. Ward,

145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (explaining that a federal court “lack[s]

jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty”).

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.1

1 The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The motion “to enforce rights of crime

victim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771” is also denied, for the same reasons detailed above.

3

I?

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 24-3039

IN RE: DWIGHT CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

(Related to D.C. Nos. 3:20-cv-00151 & 3:20-cv-00228)

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present:

CHAGARES, Chief Judge, and HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE,

RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN,

MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

The petition for rehearing filed by Petitioner in the above-captioned case having been

submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other

)

available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred

in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in

regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and

the Court en banc is DENIED.

By the Court,

s/Stephanos Bibas_______

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 24, 2025

Lmr/cc: Dwight Campbell

ALD-142-E

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 25-1705

IN RE: DWIGHT CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to 3:20-cv-00151 & 3:20-cv-00228)

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 6, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This cause came to be considered on a petition for writ of mandamus submitted on

May 6, 2025. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby

ORDERED by this Court that the petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same

is, denied. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of the Court.

DATED: May 8, 2025

V'-?_ W?'/

A True Copy: ° 'rjs.nn'5*

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

ALD-142-E

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 25-1705

IN RE: DWIGHT CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to 3:20-cv-00151 & 3:20-cv-00228)

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 6, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 8, 2025)

OPINION*

PER CURIAM

Dwight Campbell, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.

We will deny the petition.

Campbell filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District

of Pennsylvania, raising claims related to state court criminal proceedings that had been

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.

brought against him in Blair County, Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed those

cases, and we affirmed. See C.A. Nos. 22-1894; 22-1903.

In his mandamus petition, Campbell asks us to require that federal criminal

charges be brought against individuals who he claims violated his rights in connection

with the criminal proceedings. It is well-settled, however, that there is no clear and

indisputable right to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings. See Linda

R.S. v. Roland D.. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); cf. Inmates of Attica Con. Facility v.

Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375, 379 (2d Cir. 1973) (affirming dismissal of a complaint in

mandamus to compel the United States Attorney to investigate, arrest, and prosecute state

officials for committing federal offenses). Moreover, to the extent that Campbell

challenges the District Court’s dismissal of his civil lawsuits, a petition for writ of

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir.

2006). Campbell’s lack of success in his appeals of those dismissals does not mean that

there is no mechanism to seek relief. Furthermore, we cannot intervene in any pending or

completed state court criminal actions in which Campbell is a defendant. See In re

Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that, ordinarily, federal courts of

appeal “lack appellate jurisdiction over their state counterparts, thus making writs of

mandamus generally inappropriate”). Finally, although Campbell cites the Crime

Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) in his petition, he has not alleged that he has been denied

any right under the CVRA that could form the basis for mandamus relief. Cf. United

States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[t]he rights

codified by the CVRA ... are limited to the criminal justice process”).

For the above reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.