In re: Raymond C. Marshall

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2018

In re: RAYMOND C. MARSHALL,

Petitioner.

No. 19-2118

In re: RAYMOND C. MARSHALL,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02156-FL)

Submitted: April 1, 2020 Decided: April 14, 2020

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond C. Marshall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

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 (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