ANTHONY LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Petitioner, 

# FILED OCT 15 2010 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo. 10-1624 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

------------------------------- 

### ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration oftheprosepetitioner's application to proceed informapauperis and petition for a writ ofmandamus. The Court will grant the application and deny the petition. Petitioner claims to be a crime victimbecause the government "illegally and unlawfullyintercepted, used and disclosed without authorization from the United States Attorney General" certain telephone communications in violation of 18 U.S.c. §§ 2511and 2516. Pet. at 1. He alleges that these telephone communications were used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings, see Pet. at 2, which culminated in his conviction and imprisonment. He is serving a sentence oflife imprisonment without the possibilityofparole. See Lewis v. Drug EnforcementAdmin., No. 8:03-CV-121-T-24TBM, 2010 WL 2293164, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2010). As a crime victim, he seeks a writ ofmandamus directing the Attorney General to comply with the Crime Victims Rights Act ("CVRA"), see 18 U.S.C. § 3771. See Pet. at 10.Petitioner alreadyhas soughtreliefunder the CVRAbyfiling a petition for a writ ofmandamus in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit.} See Petitioner's Request for the Writ ofMandamus in Reference to the District Court's Denial ofRequest for Victims Rights and Services pursuant to Title 42 US.c. §§ 10606, 10607 and Title 18 US.C. § 3771(a) in Light ofInRe Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285 (lIth Cir. 2008), in Concert with Appeal of Denial ofRecusal and Reassignment ofthe Case to Another Judge, In re Lewis, No. 10-13226 (lIth Cir. July 15, 2010). The petitionwas denied because "there is no ongoing 'prosecution of the person charged with the crime', [and] Petitioner is not a 'crime victim' withinthe meaning of the CVRA." Order, In re Lewis, No. 10-13226-J (lIth Cir. July 16, 2010) (per curiam) (quoting In re Stewart, 552 F.3d at 1286). The issue ofpetitioner's rights underthe CVRAhas been decided bythe Eleventh Circuit, and the doctrine ofcollateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation ofthe issue in this court. SeeAshev. Swenson, 397 US. 436, 443-44 (1970); Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245,254 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1078 (1993). The petition will be denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

# DATfQ 11f!La

This is not petitioner's first attempt to use these intercepted wire communications as fodder for a civil action. For example, inLewis v. DrugEnforcementAdmin., No. 8:03-CV-121-T-24TBM, 2010 WL 2293164, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2010), petitioner "allege[d]

... that his constitutional rights were violated regarding, inter alia, intercepted wire communications and the use ofallegedly fraudulent search warrants. Id. That action was dismissed, and the court denied his subsequent motion for relieffromjudgment, concluding that petitioner "cannotrely on allegedly fraudulent actions that occurred in the criminal case as a basis for Rule 60(b) reliefin this civil rights case." Id. at *2.