Campbell v. Louisiana State et al
Filing
2
ORDER AND REASONS Campbells petition is DENIED. The case is hereby dismissed. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/10/2012.(caa, ) Modified on 8/10/2012 (caa, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHONDRELL CAMPBELL
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 12-2046
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Shondrell Campbell’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
For the reasons that follow, the petition is DENIED.
Background
Shondrell Campbell alleges that she made payment arrangements
with the St. John the Baptist Parish District Attorney’s Office to
satisfy her obligations concerning returned post-dated checks that
she
had
made
out
to
certain
vendors.
Notwithstanding
her
contention that she had made “numerous” payments to the District
Attorney’s Office as agreed, she was arrested; ultimately, a jury
rendered a verdict of guilty of one count of issuing a worthless
check.
She complains that the jury verdict was not supported by
the evidence and that she has discovered several prejudicial errors
and defects in her trial.
She contends that her right to a fair
trial was violated and that her requests for a new trial were
improperly denied.
Her requests that Judge Sterling Snowdy recuse
himself from hearing her motion for a new trial and from acting as
the sentencing judge were also denied.
Her sentencing hearing is
apparently scheduled for August 13, 2012.
1
Campbell, pro se, now urges the Court to grant a writ of
mandamus; in particular, she requests that the Court vacate certain
rulings issued in the St. John the Baptist Parish District Court
Division C, including a motion for recusal and motions for a new
trial, and she asks that Judge Sterling Snowdy be disqualified from
presiding over her upcoming sentencing.
I.
Campbell contends that a writ of mandamus should issue because
Judge Snowdy has abused his discretion. In casting her petition as
one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, Campbell’s request for relief
fails as a matter of law.
Section 1361, on its face, applies only
to federal officers or agents:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer
or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to
perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Liberally construed, however, Campbell’s petition either asks
this Court to review Judge Snowdy’s conduct, or seeks injunctive or
declaratory relief in that she requests, among other things, that
this Court require Judge Snowdy to recuse himself from her upcoming
sentencing hearing and that this Court vacate certain rulings he
has issued.
Either way, she is not entitled to relief in this
Court.
The Supreme Court of the Unites States is the only federal
court which may sit in appellate review of state court decisions.
2
District of Columbia, Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
482 (1983).
And, a federal court’s power to enjoin state court
proceedings is limited by the very architecture of our republican
system and by law.
The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283
instructs:
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction
to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid
of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.
28 U.S.C. § 2283.
Campbell has not shown that this Court has the
power to enjoin her state court proceedings; she has not shown that
any of the limited exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act applies to
this case.
Instead, these types of challenges to state criminal
proceedings or confinement are more properly remedied through
direct appeal or a writ of habeas corpus. Of course, habeas corpus
is not available until the petitioner exhausts her state court
remedies.1
Accordingly, Campbell’s petition is DENIED.
The case is
hereby dismissed.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 10, 2012
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Campbell suggests in her papers that she has failed to
obtain relief through an ordinary motion for post-conviction
relief.
But Campbell has not shown that she has exhausted her
state law remedies for seeking post-conviction relief.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?