Court Opinion

ID: 9374770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:59.838529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.918225
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1022      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1022

        In re: ALPHONZA LEONARD PHILLIP THOMAS, III,

                            Petitioner.

                     On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00271-TDS-JEP)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1022      Doc: 10          Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, seeks

        an order directing his immediate release while his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is pending.

        He also requests that we review an order from the Inmate Grievance Resolution Board.

        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 (cleaned up). This court

        does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v.

        Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). We

        conclude that the relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of mandamus.

               In a supplement to his mandamus petition, Thomas alleges that the district court has

        unduly delayed in ruling on his civil complaint. He seeks an order from this court entering

        judgment in his favor. The present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court,

        and, in any event, the relief Thomas seeks is not available by way of mandamus. See In re

        Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining that mandamus may

        not be used as substitute for appeal).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus, as supplemented. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1022     Doc: 10        Filed: 02/22/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                          PETITION DENIED

                                                  3