In re: Stephen P. Wallace

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1564
In re: STEPHEN P. WALLACE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
(1:16-cv-00047-JCC-MSN)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit
Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen P. Wallace, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of
mandamus filed by Stephen Wallace under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("CVRA"). The CVRA affords to
victims of crime the rights to reasonable protection from the
accused, to notice of court proceedings, to participation in
court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive
restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to
be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). These rights must
be asserted in the district court and, if the district court
denies relief, the movant may petition the court of appeals for
a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If such a petition
is filed, "[t]he court of appeals shall take up and decide such
application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has
been filed." Id. If the court of appeals denies the relief
sought, "the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on
the record in a written opinion." Id.
Petitioner filed a civil complaint in district court
alleging tortious interference with contract. He subsequently
sought to stay the action in order to obtain counsel. The
district court stayed the action for six weeks, noting in its
order that other courts had sanctioned petitioner for his
filings and that obtaining counsel could bring clarity to
petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner filed motions to vacate that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
order due to its reference to prior sanctions, to disqualify the
district judge due to bias, and to continue the stay of
proceedings.
Complainant maintains in this mandamus petition that he is
a crime victim under the CVRA because the criminal findings of
fact and conclusions of law against him constitute crimes
perpetrated under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242. He also states that
his status as a victim has been verified by the Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Justice. He asks this court to
grant the writ, assume original jurisdiction, stay his civil
action, and permit him to present evidence of criminal conduct.
Petitioner is not a crime victim seeking to enforce rights
protected by the CVRA. He is, instead, a civil plaintiff
seeking to challenge orders entered in his case. The CVRA
affords this court no jurisdiction to review the district
court’s orders. Moreover, petitioner has failed to present
grounds requiring the district judge to disqualify himself or
grant the other relief requested and has therefore failed to
establish a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35 (1990)).
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --