In re: Stephen Wallace, No. 16-1564 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1564 In re: STEPHEN P. WALLACE, Petitioner.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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus Rights filed Act, 18 by Stephen U.S.C. § Wallace 3771 under ("CVRA"). the The Crime CVRA Victims' 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 alleging tortious interference with contract. district court 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 filings that and other that courts had obtaining petitioner’s complaint. sanctioned counsel petitioner could bring for clarity his to Petitioner filed motions to vacate that 2 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 perpetrated under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242. his status as a victim has been constitute crimes He also states that 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 seeking to affords this court’s orders. CVRA. challenge court He orders no is, instead, entered jurisdiction Moreover, petitioner in to a his civil case. review has The the failed plaintiff to CVRA district 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
