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 Third C ir c uit 3-27-2009 

# Frede rick B anks v

. U S Atty P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3801

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and 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 Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F re de rick B anks v

. U S Atty " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1654. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1654A L D - 121 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. 08- 3801; 08- 4264 ( cons ol i dat ed)

___________ FR E D E R I C K H . B A N K S, A ppel l ant

v. UNI T E D S T AT E S AT T OR NE Y; CO UNS E L OR J AC KS ON; BR UC E P E AR S ON, W arden; H A R L E Y L A P P IN ; L A R R Y R A N D L E , D i rect or, F ederal B ureau o f P ri sons; CONST ANCE RE ES E, W a r d e n ; CHAPL AI N HO LS TE N; CHAPL AI N W I LL I AM S CO M . J OHN S ON; CO J ERR Y BARBER; M c CUTCHON; S OUTHERL AND ; DR. KA THER YN LAW SON ; CH RI STOPHER CU RRY ; M I LDR ED G REER; EDEN WHI T E ; CO UNS E L OR GR I F F E N; I NM AT E AC CO UNT I NG OF F I CE R; CA M E RO N LI NDSE Y, W a r d e n ; CAS E M ANA GER M ARC RE NDA ; COUNSE LOR ART RO BE RT S ; J UL I E NI CK L I N, Ca mp Ad mi n i s tr a t i o n ; CH AP L AI N F P C C ANAAN ; WALT E R H AR RI S ; D. GR E E N; DE NI S E BR E WER ; P AT RI CI A S T ANS BE RR Y,

Wa r d e n ; CH AP L AI N Z I CK E F OOS E ; CH AP L AI N R OB I NS ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 08- cv- 01394) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February26, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 27, 2009

_________ OP I NI ON

_________I n hi s pet i t i on, B anks al l eged that : ( 1) offi ci al s atthe Feder al Pr i s on C amp atC annan 1 ( “FC P- C annan” ) fal s el yal l eged i n i nci dentr eport s thathe pos s es s ed per s onal i nform at i on a b o u t th e w a rd e n ; (2 ) o f f icia ls a t th e F e d e ra l C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n in B u tn e r, N o rth C ar ol i na ( “FC I - B utner ”) fal s i fi ed document s and “c oncoct ed otherl i es ” i n or dert o have h im tra n sf

e rre d f ro m th e p riso n ; an d (3 ) o f f icia ls a t th e F e d e ra l C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n in Y azoo C i ty(“FC I- Y azoo C i ty ”) doct ored do cum ents i n h i s cent ral fi l e i n o rdert o incr ease h is s e c u ritysta tu s. B a n k s f u rth e r a lleg e d th a t o f

f icia ls a t F C I-Y a z o o C ityh a d v io late d h is r i ght s i n s ever al otherw ay s , i ncl udi ng, fori ns t ance , fi r i ng hi m w i thoutcaus e fr om hi s l aw l i br aryw or k as s i gnm ent , and movi ng hi m fr om hi s bot t om bunk des pi t e ce r t ai n m edi cal r es tr i ct i ons . A l though he names a numberof pr i s on offi ci al s i n hi s pet i t i on, B anks s ought o n ly to c o m p e l a c tio n b yth e U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cons ol i dat ed appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O ur 2 re v ie w o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g B a n k s ’s m a n d a m u s p e titio n is p le n a ry. S e e H a rm o n C o v e C o n d o m in iu m A s s ’n v . M a rs h , 8 1 5 F .2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). 2 P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , Fr eder i ck B anks , i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on i n Y azoo Ci ty , M i s s i s s i ppi . O n J ul y21, 2008, B anks fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on for a w ri t of m an d am u s u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 3 6 1 an d 1 6 5 1 in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. In h is p e tit io n , B a n k s a sk e d th e D istric t C o u rt to i s s ue a w r i tcompel l i ng the U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyt o pr os ecut e ce r t ai n offi ci al s atthr ee fede r al pr i s ons i n w hi ch he ha s been i ncar cer at ed. ( M andamus Pet i t i on, D kt# 1, atpp. 1 2- 7. ) B yor derent er ed A ugus t18, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A (b )(1 ) f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c o u ld b e g ra n ted . B a n k s s o u g h t re c o n sid e ra tio n , b u t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is re q u e st. T h is cons ol i dat ed appe al fol l ow ed. 23

U pon r evi ew , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatB anks ’ s m andamus pe t i t i on fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. A l though a di s tr i ctcourtm ay i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus unde r28 U . S. C . § 1361 t o compel “an of fi cerorempl oy ee of 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 ,” it m a yo n lyd o so if

th e d u ty o w e d is “ a c le a r n o n d is c re tio n a ry d u ty.” H e c k le r v . R in g e r, 4 6 6 U .S . 6 0 2 , 6 1 6 (1 9 8 4 ). A s the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, the D epart m entof J us t i ce’ s deci s i on t o pr os ecut e an in d iv id u a l is p u re ly d is c re tio n a ry; th e re f o re , m a n d a m u s c o u ld n o t lie u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1361 t o compel pr os ecut i on of B anks ’ s al l eged of fende r s . See, e. g. , I nm at es of A t t i ca C orr . Faci l i tyv. R ockef el l er , 477 F. 2d 375, 379 ( 2d C i r . 1973) ( s t at i ng that“fe der al court s have tr adi t i onal l y , and, t o ourknow l edge, uni form l yr efr ai ned fr om overturni ng, at the i ns t ance of a pr i vat e per s on, di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons of fe der al pr os ecut i ng author i t i es n o t t o p rose cu te pe rson s reg ard ing w h o m a c o m p lai n t of crim inal co n d u ct i s m ad e.”) B a n k s a lso a p p e a ls f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g re c o n sid e ra tio n o f its deci s i on. I n hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, B anks ar gued thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed “a s a mat t erof l aw and fa ct ” i n deny i ng hi s m andamus pe t i t i on beca us e he ha d a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e r i ght ” under18 U . S. C . § 3332 t o compel the U . S. A t t orneyt o “pr es ent e v id e n c e to a G ra n d J u ry.” (M o tio n f o r R e c o n s id e ra tio n , D k t # 7 , a t p . 1 .) W e d is a g re e . A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , the D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t m a n d a m u s c a n n o t li e to compel the U . S. A t t orneyt o exer ci s e hi s di s cr et i on. Fur therm or e, t o the ext entthatB anks bel i eves that18 U . S. C . § 3332 gr ant s hi m the r i ghtt o pr es entevi dence t o a gr and j ury , heT o the ext entthatB anks as ks us t o cons true hi s not i ce of appea l fr om the D i s tr i ct 3 C ou rt ’s order deny i ng his m oti on for r econ si derat i on as a pet i t i on for a w ri tof m and am us, h is re q u e s t is d e n ie d . 4 i s m i s t aken. T hats ect i on des cr i bes the pow er s and dut i es of a pr oper l yempanel ed gr and ju ry; it d o e s n o t e n a b le a p ri v a te c itiz e n s u c h a s B a n k s to p re s e n t a c a s e to a g ra n d ju ry. See 18 U . S. C . § 3332. T hus , beca us e B anks di d notpr ovi de the D i s tr i ctC our tw i th any leg iti m a te b a sis f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , tha t th e c o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in deny i ng hi s m ot i on. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthi s cons ol i dat ed appe al does not pr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der s . See Thi r d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. 3