Court Opinion

ID: 9956796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:57.651825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:52.601729
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2231      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2231

        In re: DARRIUS A. HEUSER-WHITAKER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:18-cr-00177-RAJ-LRL-4)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrius A. Heuser-Whitaker, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2231      Doc: 13          Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Federal prisoner Darrius Heuser-Whitaker (“Petitioner”) has filed an original and a

        supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to order Senior United

        States District Court Judge Raymond Jackson to either (1) grant Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion; or (2) answer Petitioner’s “Affidavit for Peremptory Mandamus to Depose

        Witness” (“Affidavit”). We conclude that Petitioner 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).

               Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently ruled

        on Petitioner’s § 2255 motion. In doing so, the district court rejected Petitioner’s habeas

        claim predicated on a statement that was the impetus for the Affidavit. We therefore deny

        the mandamus petitions as moot. 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