[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11344 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar AUGUST 30, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-21167-ASG
JAMES BERNARD CAMPBELL,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID M. GERSTEN,
JOSEPH P. FARINA,
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE,
BILL MCCOLLUM,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 30, 2010)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Bernard Campbell, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of
his application to reopen his state post-conviction proceedings. The district court
ruled that Campbell’s action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm.
Campbell filed an application for a preliminary injunction and asked the
district court to compel a Florida court to reopen Campbell’s proceedings to vacate
his conviction, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. Campbell argued that the state court, the
prosecutor, and defense counsel had denied him due process acting under color of
state law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Campbell’s application.
The district court did not err because Campbell failed to state a claim for
any form of cognizable relief. Even if we look “behind the label of” Campbell’s
application and amendments, his action is not “cognizable under a different
remedial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25
(11th Cir. 1990). Because the state court ruled that Campbell’s motions were
barred from review as successive and untimely, he cannot relitigate those issues in
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295,
1301 (11th Cir. 1995). The district court also lacked authority to issue a writ of
mandamus to compel the state court and its officers to reinstate his motions to
vacate and consider those motions on the merits. See Lamar v. 118th Jud. Dist.
2
Ct., 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971). Campbell also failed to state a claim under
section 1983 because his arguments about the denial of his post-conviction motion
and constitutional violations committed by state authorities challenged the fact and
duration of his confinement. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S. Ct.
1242, 1245 (2005).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Campbell’s application.
3