In re: Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas, Iii

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --