IN RE: Raymond C. MARSHALL (2020)

Raymond C. Marshall petitions for writs of mandamus seeking an order vacating the transfer of his 28 U.S.C § 2254 (2018) petition, liberally construing the § 2254 petition as a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion, and reducing his sentence to time served. We conclude that Marshall is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. Here, the Eastern District of North Carolina transferred Marshall’s petition to the Middle District of North Carolina in June 2018, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (2018), and the Middle District denied relief. Because Marshall’s § 2254 petition is no longer pending in either district court, the relief sought by Marshall is not available by way of mandamus. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED

PER CURIAM:

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.