`
`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`NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
