In re: Genesis Whitted, Jr.
In re: Genesis Whitted, Jr.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1653 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1653
In re: GENESIS LEE WHITTED, JR., a/k/a Gen, a/k/a Juice Man,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:15-cr-00372-M-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Genesis Lee Whitted, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1653 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Genesis Lee Whitted, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the district court to order the production of discovery materials from Whitted’s
2018 criminal trial so that he can conduct a postconviction investigation into his criminal
case. We conclude that Whitted 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). Such relief is available only when the petitioner
has an indisputable right to the relief he seeks and no other adequate means to obtain that
relief. Murphy-Brown,
907 F.3d at 795. Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute
for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353(4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that the relief sought by Whitted is not available by way of mandamus.
Whitted has not demonstrated sufficiently extraordinary circumstances warranting
mandamus relief, nor has he shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief
sought and no other adequate means to obtain it. 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished