Court Opinion

ID: 9930441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:22.993118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:32.089461
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2230      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2230

        In re: TYRONE L. EXUM,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:15-hc-02031-BO)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tyrone L. Exum, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2230      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/05/2024       Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Tyrone Exum petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court

        directing the district court to liberally construe his motion for reconsideration of his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an actual innocence claim and order the state to respond. We

        conclude that Exum is not entitled to mandamus relief.

              Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted).

              The district court has denied relief on Exum’s motion for reconsideration, Exum v.

        Daniels, 5:15-hc-02031-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2023), and his appeal is currently pending

        before this court, see Exum v. Daniels, No. 23-7171 (4th Cir. docketed Nov. 22, 2023). As

        mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503

        F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), Exum has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to

        mandamus relief.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

                                                    2