CLD-159 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1682

___________

IN RE: NINA SHAHIN, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to Civ. Nos. 1-17-cv-00413 & 1-17-cv-01223)

____________________________________

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

April 11, 2019

Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 2, 2019)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Nina Shahin has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking 

relief under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. For the reasons 

set forth below, we will deny the petition. 

Shahin’s petition is “closely related to two civil cases.” Pet. at 5. In the first case, 

she alleged that Sam’s Club and Synchrony Bank engaged in “intentional and illegal 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

harassment . . in response to [her] dissatisfaction with her failure to purchase a desired 

and advertised item.” D. Del. Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1223, ECF No. 7 at 24. In the second 

case, Shahin alleged that a police officer had filed a fabricated accident report against her, 

which caused her insurance company to deny her claim for reimbursement. D. Del. Civ. 

A. No. 17-cv-0413, ECF No. 13-2 at 2. She originally filed both actions in the Delaware 

Court of Common Pleas, and then sought to remove the actions to the United States 

District Court for the District of Delaware. In separate orders, the District Court 

remanded the matters to the Court of Common Pleas, explaining, among other things, that 

there was no federal jurisdiction, that removal was untimely, and that there was nothing 

to remove because both actions had been fully adjudicated in the Court of Common 

Pleas.” Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1223, ECF No. 10 at 5; Civ. A. No. 17-cv-0413, ECF No. 20 

at 5.

Now, Shahin has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. She argues that she is 

entitled to relief under the CVRA. More specifically, she contends that there has been “a 

pattern of judicial harassment, intimidation, deprivation of constitutional rights to a fair 

trial and ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ in the Delaware judicial system (state and 

federal),” which has resulted in her being “victimized the second time in the judicial 

process.” Pet. at 5.

Shahin has not been denied any right under the CVRA that could form the basis 

for mandamus relief in this Court. The CVRA guarantees to the victims of federal crimes 

a variety of rights, including the right to notice of a court proceeding involving the crime, 

the right to be present at any such public court proceeding, the right to be reasonably 
3

heard at such a proceeding, and the right to receive “full and timely restitution as 

provided in law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). A crime victim can assert these rights in the 

District Court and, if the District Court denies relief, can file a petition for a writ of 

mandamus in a Court of Appeals. § 3771(d)(3). 

However, in this case, Shahin is seeking only to advance her civil actions. “The 

rights codified by the CVRA . . . are limited to the criminal justice process; the Act is 

therefore silent and unconcerned with victims’ rights to file civil claims against their 

assailants.” United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234–35 (4th Cir. 2007); see also

In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 610 (6th Cir. 2009). As the CVRA provides, “[n]othing in this 

chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to 

enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of 

which the United States or any of its officers or employees could be held liable in 

damages.” § 3771(d)(6). Accordingly, Shahin has failed to demonstrate a right to relief 

under the CVRA.1

We will therefore deny the mandamus petition.

 1 Shahin does not challenge the District Court’s remand orders, and we therefore do not 

consider whether we would have jurisdiction over such a challenge. See generally In re 

Fed.-Mogul Glob., Inc., 300 F.3d 368, 388 (3d Cir. 2002).