In Re: Rochester v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1910
In Re: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and a pro se petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
The Crime Victims’ Rights Act affords to victims of crime the
rights to receive notice of court proceedings, to be heard at court
proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive
restitution, to be free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated
with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act provides that these
rights shall be asserted in the district court and that “[i]f the
district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition
the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(c)(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. Furthermore, “[i]f 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 Rochester moves, as a kidnap victim, for relief
from his “kidnapped status.” He asserts that he has been held in
state custody 23 years, 9 months, and 17 ½ days beyond his maximum
release date for crimes that carried no penalty or only a fine. He
claims to be the victim of forged warrants, conspiracy, double
jeopardy violations, threats, and other illegalities.
2
Petitioner has raised these and other claims in numerous
actions in the district court and on appeal. He has been subject
to a pre-filing review order in the District of South Carolina
since January 1996. In re Rochester, Misc. No. 2:95-MC-131 (D.S.C.
Jan. 29, 1996). He has filed 29 prior cases in this Court and
been granted relief in none of them.
The statutory provision for expedited mandamus review of the
district court’s denial of rights asserted under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(a) has no application to the claims asserted by Rochester.
Rochester’s claims are attacks on the legality of his confinement,
which have been fully litigated in prior habeas corpus actions. He
has not been denied any right under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) which could
form the basis for a mandamus petition to this Court.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismisses this mandamus petition. Petitioner is
warned that any further effort to raise these claims will result in
issuance of an order to show cause why a pre-filing injunction
should not be entered against him by this Court. See In re
Vincent, 105 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1997).
PETITION DISMISSED
3