Shelton v. United States Department of Justice

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota September 10, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                     DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              

Victor Shelton,                    Case No. 24-cv-2887 (NEB/DTS)        

     Petitioner,                                                        

v.                               REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

United States Department of Justice,                                    

     Respondent.                                                        

   This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Victor Shelton’s (1) Petition for a 
Writ of Mandamus, Dkt. No. 1 (Petition); and (2) motion received by the Court on July 22, 
2024, Dkt. No. 4 (Motion).  The Court recommends denying the Petition and the Motion 
for the following reasons.                                                
   In June 2018, authorities in Minnesota’s Stearns County charged Shelton with 
three counts related to prostitution and sex trafficking.  See Compl. 1–2, State v. Shelton, 
No.  73-CR-18-5517  (Minn.  Dist.  Ct.);  cf.

Minn. Stat. § 609.322

,  subd.  1(a)(1);

id.

 
§ 609.322, subd.  1(a)(3); id. § 609.322, subd.  1(a)(4).1  Shelton pleaded guilty to 
receiving profits from prostitution and received a 168-month prison sentence.  See Pet.  
to Enter Plea of Guilty in Felony or Gross Misdemeanor Case Pursuant to Rule 15 at 3, 
State v. Shelton, No. 73-CR-18-5517 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 13, 2019); Order and Warrant 
of Commitment 2, State v. Shelton, No. 73-CR-18-5517 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 13, 2019).  

1 Certain documents from Shelton’s state-court prosecution do not appear in this action’s 
docket.  Because these records are public court records, however, the Court may take 
judicial notice of them.  See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville,

420 F.3d 757

, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 
2005) (citing United States v. Eagleboy,

200 F.3d 1137, 1140

 (8th Cir. 1999)); Bethune 
v. Baker, No. 21-CV-2640,

2024 WL 2862132

, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. June 6, 2024) (citing 
Stutzka).                                                                 
He is currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights in 
Stillwater, Minnesota.  See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-5 at 1.                     
   The Court received Shelton’s Petition and Motion on July 22, 2024.  See Pet.  1.  
The Petition asks the Court to compel the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate 

civil-rights complaints filed by Shelton and his wife.  See, e.g.,

id. at 2

, 7–10.  Those 
complaints  ostensibly  allege  that  the  State  of  Minnesota  has  manipulated  relevant 
definitions of “sex trafficking” to target racial minorities unfairly while being lenient to white 
patrons and prostitutes.  See, e.g.,

id. at 3, 6

.  Shelton also accuses the State of 
Minnesota of violating federal laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) 
and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  See

id. at 3, 4

, 6–10.  He further asserts that this refusal 
amounts to complicity in racial discrimination and misuse of federal funding.  See

id. at 10

.  
The Motion similarly requests that the Court require the DOJ to investigate Shelton’s 
allegations.  See Mot.  1; see also, e.g., Br. in Supp. of Mot.  to Compel 2–4, Dkt. No. 5 
(Brief).                                                                  

   Shelton has paid the filing fee for this action.  See, e.g., Dkt. No. 8.  But under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), “a court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a 
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”  Section 1915A(b) requires that “the 
court . . . dismiss the complaint” if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 
which relief may be granted.”  The critical question is whether the Court can grant the 
relief requested in the Petition.                                         
   Under

28 U.S.C. § 1361

, federal district courts “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.”  But a writ of mandamus is 
an “extraordinary remedy” that “will issue only to compel the performance of ‘a clear 
nondiscretionary duty.’”  Pittston Coal Grp.  v. Sebben,

488 U.S. 105, 121

 (1988) (quoting 
Heckler v. Ringer,

466 U.S. 602, 616

 (1984)); see also, e.g., Mitchael v. Colvin,

809 F.3d 1050, 1054

 (8th Cir. 2016) (making same points (quoting Castillo v. Ridge,

445 F.3d 1057

, 
1060–61 (8th Cir. 2006)).  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has established 
that                                                                      
        [m]andamus may issue under § 1361 . . . only in extraordinary   
        situations and when the plaintiff can establish (1) “a clear and 
        indisputable right to the relief sought,” (2) the state officer “has 
        a nondiscretionary duty to honor that right,” and (3) there is  
        “no other adequate remedy.”                                     
Mitchael,

809 F.3d at 1054

 (quoting Castillo, 445 F.3d at 1060–61); see also, e.g., United 
States v. Alatorre, No. 19-CR-0061(1),

2023 WL 5000216

, at *4 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) 
(quoting Mitchael).  The decision also states that “‘for mandamus to lie[,] the duty owed 
to the plaintiff must be ministerial and a positive command so plainly prescribed as to be 
free from doubt.’”

Id.

  (quoting Keeny v. Sec’y of the Army,

437 F.2d 1151, 1152

 (8th Cir. 
1971)); see also, e.g., Thomas v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-2730,

2023 WL 6148228

, at *5 (D. 
Minn. Sept. 20, 2023) (quoting Mitchael)).                                
   Shelton’s suggestion that the DOJ has a nondiscretionary duty to investigate 
claims at his insistence is not novel.  But it is well established that “[a] private citizen lacks 
a  judicially  cognizable  interest  in  the  prosecution  or  nonprosecution  of  another.”  
Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

410 U.S. 614

, 619 (1973); see also, e.g., Pratt v. Helms,

73 F.4th 592, 594

 (8th Cir. 2023) (discussing Linda R.S.), cert. denied,

144 S. Ct. 567

 
(2024).  Consequently, Shelton has no “clear and indisputable right” to the investigation 
he demands.  Moreover, numerous courts have held that DOJ decisions about which 
investigations  to  pursue  fall  within  agency  discretion.    Thus,  the  DOJ  has  no  
“nondiscretionary duty” to comply with Shelton’s request.  See, e.g., Talbert v. Biden, 
No. 23-CV-0260,

2024 WL 3445749

, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2024) (citing cases), report 
and recommendation adopted,

2024 WL 3444374

 (W.D. Pa. July 17, 2024); Bond v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Just.,

828 F. Supp. 2d 60, 75

(D.D.C. 2011) (same).
Based on the preceding analysis, Shelton’s Petition fails to state a claim for which
the Court can grant relief. The Court therefore recommends denying the Petition, and
given that recommendation, the Court further recommends denying the Motion as moot.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT:
1. Petitioner Victor Shelton’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Dkt. No. 1, be
DENIED.
2. Shelton’s motion received by the Court on July 22, 2024, Dkt. No. 4, be
DENIED as moot.

Dated: September 10, 2024 ____s/David T. Schultz____
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
U.S. Magistrate Judge

NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule
72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth
in Local Rule 72.2(c).