Opinion
23-1022
02-22-2023
In re: ALPHONZA LEONARD PHILLIP THOMAS, III, Petitioner.
Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 16, 2023
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:22-cv-00271-TDS-JEP)
Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED