
    IN RE: Jelani SOLOMON, Petitioner
    No. 17-2558
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 17, 2017
    (Opinion filed: September 1, 2017)
    Jelani Solomon, Pro Se
    Rebecca R. Haywood, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Respondent
    Before: SHWARTZ, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Jelani Solomon has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny the petition.

In 2008, Solomon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and committing murder during and in relation to the cocaine conspiracy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. See United States v. Solomon, 387 Fed.Appx. 258 (3d Cir. 2010) (non-precedential). The Government also initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding and ultimately took possession of, among other things, several parcels of real property. A final order of forfeiture was entered in September 2006. See W.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 05-1498 dkt. #12. Solomon has repeatedly attacked this forfeiture order, to no avail. In November 2010, in response to Solomon’s repetitive filings, the District Court directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse to docket further filings from Solomon in the forfeiture action without Court preauthorization. See W.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 05-1498 dkt. #31. Solomon did not appeal that order; instead, he began to file his forfeiture-related challenges in his criminal docket, and in March 2014, the District Court entered a filing injunction in that action as well. See W.D. Pa. Crim. A. No. 2-05-cr-00385 dkt. #912. Solomon did not appeal that order, either.

Solomon has now filed a petition for writ of mandamus. His argument is somewhat difficult to follow. He seems to contend that, because the Government obtained an order of civil forfeiture before his criminal trial began, the Government violated principles of res judicata or estoppel by referring to the property subject to that order at his criminal trial. (The Government argued at trial that Solomon’s unaccounted-for wealth was circumstantial evidence of his involvement in illegal activities.) It appears that he now seeks to set aside his criminal judgment.

We will deny Solomon’s petition. He could have raised this challenge to his conviction either on direct appeal, see In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”), or, potentially, via a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, cf. Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Any motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence, and substantively within the scope of § 2255 ¶ 1, is a motion under § 2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the cover. Call it a motion for a new trial, arrest of judgment, mandamus, prohibition, coram nobis, coram vobis, audita que-rela, certiorari, capias, habeas corpus, ejectment, quare impedit, bill of review, writ of error, or an application for a Get-Out-of-Jail Card; the name makes no difference. It is substance that controls.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, mandamus relief is not available.

We will thus deny the mandamus petition. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      . While the Government included forfeiture allegations in the criminal indictment, the District Court did not enter a criminal forfeiture order.
     