IN RE: Abdu-Salim GOULD (2020)

Abdu-Salim Gould petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release or an order directing the district court to grant his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He also seeks credit for time served. We conclude that Gould 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. Ct., 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.

The relief sought by Gould is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny Gould's petition for writ of mandamus and his supplemental petition. Additionally, although we grant Gould's motion for leave to file a motion for injunctive relief, we deny his motion for a stay of his § 2254 proceeding, and deny his motions for an order to show cause, for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, or for disciplinary proceedings directed to prison officials and to the judges and court personnel of the Eastern District of Virginia. 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

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.