In re: Alphonza Thomas, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-1022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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