Dr. Darrell L. Whitman, proceeding pro se, petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to compel federal officials to remedy alleged government wrongdoing. Dr. Whitman alleged a fifteen-year pattern of corruption and retaliation, including the termination of his federal employment in 2015, denials of his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and delays in investigating his whistleblower complaints. He requested that the court order officials to stay his employment termination, comply with FOIA requests, investigate his complaints, and commence criminal prosecutions against responsible officials. The court noted that while Dr. Whitman identified other persons as real parties in interest, he had not established that they retained him to represent them, so the petition was construed as being brought solely on his own behalf.
The court applied the three conditions required for a writ of mandamus: the petitioner must have no other adequate means to attain relief, must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and the court must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal or ordinary remedies. Specifically, the court reasoned that mandamus relief is not proper in lieu of or in addition to established remedial schemes for claims involving federal employment rights, whistleblowing provisions, and the FOIA. The court stated, 'A mandamus proceeding under [28 U.S.C.] section 1651, although characterized as an original proceeding, is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, but an aid of appellate jurisdiction.' Furthermore, regarding the request to direct the Attorney General to investigate and commence criminal prosecutions, the court cited the principle that 'the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.' The court clarified that 'Mandamus . . . will not lie to direct the manner in which discretionary acts of governmental officials are to be performed nor to direct or influence the exercise of discretion in making such decisions.'
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, meaning Dr. Whitman cannot use this extraordinary judicial remedy to force investigations, employment stays, or criminal prosecutions. The decision reinforces that individuals with grievances regarding federal employment, whistleblower retaliation, or FOIA denials must utilize the specific statutory remedies provided by Congress rather than seeking judicial intervention through mandamus. Additionally, the court granted Dr. Whitman's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, allowing him to pursue other available avenues at no initial financial cost.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download