2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-19-2009 

# Mich a el P i skanin v

. M eul le r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-2836

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mich a e l P i sk a nin v

. M e ul le r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 424. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/424DL D- 3 2 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2836

___________ 

### M IC H A E L JO HNP IS KAN IN , JR ., Appe l l ant

v. J OHN DOE AS SPECI AL AGENT IN CHARGE PHI LADELPHI A DI STRI CT OFFI CE OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTI GATI ON; MEULLER, DI RECTOR, IND I VI DUAL AN D A S T HE DI RE CT OR OF FI CE OF TH E F ED ERAL BU RE AUOF INV ES TI GA TI ON

____________________________________ OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 09- c v- 02553) Di s tri c t Judge : Honor abl e Mi c ha e lM. Bayl s on

____________________________________ Submi tt e d for

Pos s ibl e Summ ary

Ac t i on P ursu ant to T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Se pt e m be r 24, 2009 Befo re : BARRY , AMB RO and S MITH , Circuit Judg es ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Oc t obe r

19, 2009)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PER CURI AM. M i chae l J . Pi s kani n, J r . , a Penns y l vani a s t at e i nm at e, comm ence d t hi s pr o s e ac t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a byfi l i ng aInsofar as Piskanin moves for pe rmission to subm it his “Motion t o Allow Informal 1 Brief”as a response to possible summary action, that motion is gra nted. 2 p lea d in g tit led “ C o m p lain t S e e k in g to C o m p e l F e d e ra l O f f ice rs to P e rf

o rm D u tyto Pr ot ect . ” Pi s kani n cl ai m ed thathe i s a “f or m eroper at i ve” f

ort he Feder al B ur eau of In v e stig a tio n , an d th a t h e is e n tit led to F B I “ p ro tec tio n ” f ro m n u m e ro u s p u b lic o f f icia ls w ho al l egedl yhave e ngaged i n r et al i at or yact s , i ncl udi ng t he cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on of Pi s kani n. Pi s kani n as ked thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ectt he named defe ndant s t o t r ans fer hi m t o fede r al cus t ody , conducta ful l i nves t i gat i on, and “r emove” t o fede r al cour t“the cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons atC R 0002072 and 2004. ” Pi s kani n purpor t ed t o s eek thi s r el i ef u n d e r t h e A ll W ri ts A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 , a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 4 4 2 (a )( 1 ) a n d 1 4 4 6 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Pi s kani n l eave t o pr ocee d i n for m a paupe r i s and di s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntas l egal l yfr i vol ous . V i ew i ng t he compl ai ntas s eeki ng a w r i tof m andamus unde r28 U . S. C . § 1361, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatPi s kani n fai l ed t o s how t hathe exha us t ed al l ot heravenue s of r el i ef ort hathi s r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i ti s cl ear and i ndi s put abl e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl i ned t o i nt er vene i n t he pendi ng cr i m i nal act i ons gi ven the abs ence of anys how i ng of ci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng s uch r el i ef. P i s k a n i n t i me l yf

i l e d t h i s a p p e a l . W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. O urC l er k advi s ed the part i es t hatt hi s C our tw oul d cons i ders um m aryact i on underT hi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e C hapt er10. 6. Pi s kani n has fi l ed re sp o n se s titled “ S tate m e n t o f Iss u e s o n A p p e a l w ith In f o rm a l B rie f

” a n d “ M o tio n to Al l o w I n f

o r ma l Br i e f. ” Af

t e ra c a r e f

u l r e v i e w o f

t h e s e s u b mi s s i o n s a n d t h e r e c o r d , we 13

wi l l s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt w a s c o rr e c t th a t P is k a n in is n o t e n title d to m a n d a m u s re lie f. A di s t r i ctcour thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1361 t o i s s ue a w r i t“t o compel an off i cer o r e m p lo y e e o f

th e U n ited S tate s ... to p e rf o rm a d u tyo w e d to th e p lain tiff ,” b u t th e w rit m ayi s s ue onl yfor“a c l earnondi s cr et i onarydut y . ” H eckl erv. R i nger , 466 U . S. 602, 616 ( 1984) . Pi s kani n’ s al l eged s t atus as a “f or m eroper at i ve” doe s nots uppor ta cl ai m t hathe i s ow ed a nondi s cr et i onarydut yfr om t he FB I ei t hert o “pr ot ect i on” fr om oran i nves t i gat i on of the al l egedl yr et al i at or yact s t aken a gai ns thi m . W hi l e 28 U . S. C . § 535 pr ovi des t hatt he FB I “mayi nves t i gat e anyvi ol at i ons of Feder al cr i m i nal l aw i nvol vi ng G overnm entoffi cer s and empl oy ees , ” the dec i s i on t o i ni t i at e an i nves t i gat i on i s w i t hi n t he F B I’s discreti o n . S ee , e.g., Jaf ree v . B arb er, 68 9 F . 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 3 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). Pi s kani n’ s s ugges t i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o acknow l edge “r emoval ” of the s t at e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons under28 U . S. C . § 1442( a) ( 1) i s w i t hout m eri t . “T o est abli sh rem ov al j uri sdi ct i on un der sect i on 14 42 (a) (1) , a def end ant . . . m ust estab li sh that (1) itis a ‘pe rson ’ w ith in the m ea n ing o f th e statute; (2) the p lai n ti ff ’s cl ai m s ar e bas ed upon the def endant ’ s conduct‘ act i ng under ’ a fe der al offi ce; ( 3) i tr ai s es a col or abl e fe der al defe ns e; and ( 4) t her e i s a ca us al nexus betw een the cl ai m s and the con du ctperform ed u nd er col or of a fed eral off i ce. ” F ei dt v. O w ens C orni ng F i bergl ass C o rp ., 1 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). P isk a n in ’s a lleg a tio n th a t h e w a s s u b jec ted to r et al i at i on forhi s al l eged r epor t s t o fede r al l aw enfor cementaboutt hos e w ho haveTo the extent that Pi skanin also sought removal of his c riminal prosec ution under 28 2 U. S.C. § 1 44 6, weno tethat th ec ri min a l matter t o whic h h ea pp arently re fers , L e high Co unty Court of Common P leas No. 39- CR-0002027-2004, is no longe r pending , and the District Court clea rly has no authority

to reviewthe state c ourts’ dec ision.

4 a lleg e d lyc o n sp ire d a g a in st h im c a n n o t su p p o rt § 1 4 4 2 (a )(1 ) re m o v a l. 2 W e re jec t P isk a n in ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d p ro c e d u ra llyin d ism iss in g h is a c tio n p rio r to se rv ice . T h e D istric t C o u rt a c ted in a c c o rd a n c e w ith its a u th o rityu n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , w h ich re q u ire s a d istric t co u rt, “b e f o re d o c k e tin g ,” to revi ew a pri soner ci vil act i on seeki ng redr ess fr om go vernm ent em ploy ees, and t o d i sm i ss the c ase if i t i s frivo lou s. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A (a)-(b). Be c a u s e t h i s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s “ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , ” 3 d Ci r . I OP Ch . 1 0 . 6 , we w ill su m m a rilya f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.