Court Opinion

ID: 9947384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:00:51.371135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:24.482260
License: Public Domain

BLD-072                                                  NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 23-2951
                                      ___________

                                  BORIS MALINSKY,

                                                  Appellant

                                             v.

                                       FBI
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-23-cv-03957)
                      District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
                      ____________________________________

                  Submitted on a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
           for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), or for
      Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   February 15, 2024
                 Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges.

                              (Opinion filed: March 4, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

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

       Boris Malinsky commenced this action in the District Court to compel the Federal

Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to turn over evidence he claims would be useful in his

state-court criminal proceedings. Specifically, Malinsky contends that the FBI has in its

possession an affidavit, as well as a video-recorded statement, from his mother averring

that she had been “trained to lie in order to send [him] to prison.” Compl. 3, ECF 1. Upon

screening, the District Court construed Malinsky’s filing as, inter alia, a petition for a writ

of mandamus and dismissed it as legally baseless pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Malinsky appealed.1

       We will summarily affirm. We agree with the District Court that Malinsky failed

to satisfy the standard for a writ of mandamus compelling the FBI to provide the requested

evidence.2 Before a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 may issue, a party must

show, among other things, that “he has exhausted all other avenues of relief.” Heckler v.

Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). In this case, however, Malinsky has not made this

       1
         We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). See
Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily affirm on any
ground supported by the record if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4;
I.O.P. 10.6.
       2
         We also agree with the District Court that Malinsky could not proceed against the
FBI under a Bivens theory because, among other things, “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign
immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” See FDIC v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Moreover, Malinsky did not allege the violation of a
constitutional right in a context to which Bivens has been extended. See Xi v. Haugen, 68
F.4th 824, 832–35 (3d Cir. 2023).

                                              2
showing because, for example, he could have requested the evidence through the

procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.21(a), the first step of which would have been to ask

the state court presiding over his criminal case to demand the evidence from the

Department of Justice, see id. §§ 16.22(a), 16.21(a)(2). If the demand did not yield the

evidence, he could then seek relief in federal court in an action under the Administrative

Procedure Act. See Kwan Fai Mak v. FBI, 252 F.3d 1089, 1092 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001).

Because Malinsky thus had other adequate means to request the evidence, he was not

entitled to this drastic remedy. See In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm.3

       3
        Malinsky’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See Sinwell v. Shapp,
536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976).

                                             3