ANTHONY LEWIS, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Petitioner, 

FILED 

OCT 15 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 10-1624 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

------------------------------- ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the pro se petitioner's 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will 

grant the application and deny the petition. 

Petitioner claims to be a crime victim because the government "illegally and 

unlawfully intercepted, 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 of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Lewis v. Drug 

Enforcement Admin., 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 of mandamus directing the Attorney General to comply 

with the Crime Victims Rights Act ("CVRA"), see 18 U.S.C. § 3771. See Pet. at 10. 
Petitioner already has sought relief under the CVRA by filing a petition for a writ 

of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.} See Petitioner's 

Request for the Writ of Mandamus in Reference to the District Court's Denial of Request for 

Victims Rights and Services pursuant to Title 42 US.c. §§ 10606, 10607 and Title 18 US.C. § 

3771(a) in Light of In Re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285 (lIth Cir. 2008), in Concert with Appeal of 

Denial of Recusal and Reassignment of the Case to Another Judge, In re Lewis, No. 10-13226 

(lIth Cir. July 15, 2010). The petition was denied because "there is no ongoing 'prosecution of 

the person charged with the crime', [and] Petitioner is not a 'crime victim' within the 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 of petitioner's rights under the CVRA has been decided by the Eleventh 

Circuit, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of the issue in 

this court. See Ashe v. 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, in Lewis v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 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 of allegedly fraudulent search warrants. Id. That action was 

dismissed, and the court denied his subsequent motion for relief from judgment, concluding that 

petitioner "cannot rely on allegedly fraudulent actions that occurred in the criminal case as a 

basis for Rule 60(b) relief in this civil rights case." Id. at *2.