IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

GORDON L. HALL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-178

WARDEN E. THOMAS, III §

 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Gordon L. Hall, a federal prisoner confined in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro

se, filed this petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Petitioner seeks an order

requiring the Bureau of Prisons to release him from prison. 

The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Analysis

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. 

Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); Davis

v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 487 (5th Cir. 1998). To obtain mandamus relief, the petitioner must show

that: (1) the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief; (2) the respondent clearly has

failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty; and (3) there are no other adequate remedies. Davis, 150

F.3d at 487; Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. National Park Service, 112 F.3d 1283, 1288

(5th Cir. 1997). If these conditions are met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must

be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. 

Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons serving federal prison sentences totaling

276 months. Petitioner claims that he sent Warden E. Thomas, III a “Notice of Demand” requiring

Case 1:23-cv-00178-MJT-ZJH Document 2 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 27
him to release Petitioner. Because Warden Thomas did not respond to the notice, Petitioner

contends that he is entitled to be released from prison. Mandamus relief in this instance is not

warranted because Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to release from prison. Further,

Petitioner has other adequate post-conviction remedies to challenge his conviction and sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Therefore, this petition for writ of mandamus should

be denied.

Recommendation

This petition for writ of mandamus should be denied.

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 16th day of May, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00178-MJT-ZJH Document 2 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 28