Brown v. State of NC, 5:24-cv-00100

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr. pled guilty to second-degree murder in Alexander County (Sept. 8, 1977) and was sentenced to life.
While serving that sentence he escaped and committed a second murder; in 2002 he pled no contest in Iredell County and received a concurrent 240–297 month sentence.
Brown previously filed federal habeas petitions: a 2015 challenge to the Iredell judgment (dismissed as untimely) and a 2018 challenge to the Alexander County sentence execution (summary judgment for the State; denial on the merits; post-judgment motions and appeal failed).
In April/May 2024 Brown filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, asking the court to compel the North Carolina DOC Secretary to apply his accrued "good time" credits to determine his unconditional release date under the law in effect at his offense.
The court concluded it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a state official because § 1361 reaches only federal officers and the All Writs Act cannot be used to compel state officials; recharacterizing the petition as § 2254 would be barred as second or successive, and the claim is also precluded by res judicata.
The action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Leslie Cooley Dismukes (current NCDAC Secretary) was noted as the proper respondent by substitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a federal district court may issue a writ of mandamus under § 1361 to compel a state official to calculate/apply state sentence credits	Brown: federal mandamus should compel NC DOC Secretary to apply accrued credits to his unconditional release date	State: § 1361 applies only to federal officers; All Writs Act cannot be used to compel state officials	Court: No — lacks jurisdiction; § 1361 does not reach state officials and All Writs Act inapplicable (dismissed)
Whether the petition should be recharacterized as a § 2254 habeas petition	Brown: seeks relief as ministerial act calculation, not a successive habeas	State: recharacterization would create an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 action barred by § 2244(b)	Court: Recharacterization would be futile; must be dismissed as second/successive if treated as § 2254
Whether claim is barred by preclusion (res judicata)	Brown: seeks same sentence-calculation relief now as in earlier Alexander County habeas	State: claim was already litigated and denied on the merits in 2018	Court: Even if jurisdiction existed, claim is barred by res judicata because it was decided on the merits previously

AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1999) (mandamus statute applies only to federal officers; All Writs Act cannot be used to compel state officials)
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1969) (federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to issue mandamus to state courts)
State v. Brown, 616 S.E.2d 30 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (state appellate opinion concerning Petitioner’s later conviction)