Louis Neptune v. ( 2021 )

CLD-196 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-1535
___________
IN RE: LOUIS NEPTUNE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 3:17-cv-12057)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 10, 2021
Before: RESTREPO, MATEY and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 14, 2021)
OPINION*
PER CURIAM
Louis Neptune, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus requesting that we direct a county prosecutor to institute criminal
charges against Deputy U.S. Attorney Andrew Carey, “instruct” New Jersey Attorney
General Gurbir Grewal “to cease engaging in official misconduct,” and “instruct” New
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Jersey Transit Police official Kathleen Shanahan to identify an unnamed police officer
who, Neptune claims, has attempted to entrap him in various crimes. For the following
reasons, we will deny Neptune’s petition.
In November 2017, Neptune brought a civil rights action against various officials
in the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office and Sherriff’s Department for, among other
things, his alleged “fake arrest on September 3, 2016.” Am. Compl. at 7, ECF No. 16.
After the District Court dismissed his complaint with further leave to amend, Neptune
filed a second amended complaint past the set deadlines, and the District Court refused to
accept it. See Mem. & Order, ECF Nos. 45 & 46. Neptune later filed a motion to reopen
that judgment, which the District Court denied, and Neptune’s subsequent appeal remains
pending in this Court. See Neptune v. Carey, et al., No. 20-3026.
The instant petition for writ of mandamus bears a tangential relationship to
Neptune’s underlying complaint. In his petition, Neptune alleges that on September 3,
2017, he “was fingerprinted and charged with forgery” in Middlesex County. See Petition
at 5, ¶ 1.1 He alleges that Marcia Silva (a named defendant in his civil rights action) lied
about discovering “an altered document” he submitted in a family court proceeding. Id. at
¶¶ 2–6. He further alleges that the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, with the
assistance of Carey, “hid” a report that proved the altered document did not have his
fingerprints on it, that Carey and Grewal “continue to work behind the scenes to make it
apper (sic) as if [Neptune is] involved in criminal behavior,” and that “Carey used his
1
This differs from his complaint, cited above, which alleged the date of his arrest was
September 3, 2016.
2
position over 10 instances to delay dismissing the charges hoping [Neptune would] take a
plea.” Id. at 5–6, ¶¶ 6–14. By way of relief, he asks that we “instruct [the] Middlesex
County Prosecutor’s Office to follow the law and bring Andrew Charles Carey before a
judge to answer for his multitude of crimes,” and “instruct Gurbir Grewal to cease
engaging in official misconduct by using his position as NJ AG to obstruct justice while
violating [Neptune’s] constitutional rights.” Id. at 6, ¶¶ 16–17.2
Neptune’s petition goes on to allege that “Kathleen Shanahan is using overtime,
promises of promotions, pulling cops who are patrolling Penn Station to change into their
civilian clothes to follow [him],” and “is using her secret police force to create fake
paperwork under the instruction of Gurbir Grewal and Andrew Carey.” Id. at 9–10, ¶¶ 3–
4. He specifically cites occasions on which “a 16 year old white girl (who looks 14)” has
been induced by an unnamed police officer to “come on to” him and “rub[] up against
[him] on the train.” Id. at 10, ¶¶ 6–10. He asks that we “instruct Kathleen Shanahan to
identify this officer who committed a crime and conspired to create a crime to have
[Neptune] arrested,” and if she “refuses to identify this officer by name then she must be
held in contempt of court and $1,000 after 30 days and double the fine every 30 day[s]
after that.” Id. at ¶¶ 8, 12.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See
In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain
mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) ‘no other adequate means [exist] to
2
Neptune also filed a supplementary document “to inform the courts of defendant
Andrew Carey[’s] . . . continued criminal behavior,” which contains similar allegations.
3
attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s ‘right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
indisputable,”’ and (3) ‘the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’” Hollingsworth
v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). In assessing the third factor of
the writ’s propriety under the circumstances, we must pay special attention to the
separation of powers and federal-state relations. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381.
Here, Neptune’s request that we issue directions and instructions to state and local
law enforcement officials not only fails to satisfy the requisite showing but also runs
afoul of these important guiding principles. Neptune attached to his petition what appear
to be criminal complaint forms he has filed against Carey and Shanahan, see Pet. 2–3, 7,
but has provided no information about the status of those complaints, or even the date on
which they were filed. Moreover, some of the alleged conduct underlying the instant
petition mirrors allegations in his pending civil rights action against the same parties.
Thus, he has not shown that no other adequate means exist to attain his desired relief.
Neptune also has not established a clear and indisputable right to the writ. An
individual has no federal right to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings.
See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); cf.
United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 173–74 (3d Cir. 1973) (“[T]he government is
permitted ‘the conscious exercise of some selectivity’ in the enforcement of its criminal
laws.” (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962))).
4
Finally, the writ would not be appropriate in any case, as it might “result in the
intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal-state relations.” Cheney,
542 U.S. at 381 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 381 (1976) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (“[F]ederal-court intervention in the
daily operation of a large city’s police department . . . is undesirable and to be avoided if
at all possible.”); Lewis v. Hyland, 554 F.2d 93, 95 (3d Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, we will deny Neptune’s petition for writ of mandamus.
5