In re: Gary William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to adopt [999117709-2]; denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999107318-2] in 13-1532, denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999107323-2] in 13-1533, denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999107327-2] in 13-1534, denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999107332-2] in 13-1535; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999094966-2] in 13-1532, denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999095016-2] in 13-1533, denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999095042-2] in 13-1534, denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999095089-2] in 13-1535 Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00055-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999130954]. Mailed to: Gary Williams. [13-1532, 13-1533, 13-1534, 13-1535]

Appeal: 13-1532

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1532

In Re:

GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.

No. 13-1533

In Re:

GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.

No. 13-1534

In Re:

GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.

No. 13-1535

In Re:

GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.

Appeal: 13-1532

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.
(3:12-cv-00055-HEH; 3:11-cv-00709-HEH;
3:11-cv-00125-HEH; 3:11-cv-00311-HEH)

Submitted:

June 13, 2013

Decided:

June 17, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary B. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1532

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams petitions for writs of mandamus
seeking orders in four separate actions in the district court
compelling the district court to grant his motions to vacate
state

court

orders

in

criminal

prosecutions;

ordering

the

district court to grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
allow him to amend his complaint, and recuse the district court
judge in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action; and directing the
Respondent to file a responsive pleading to his habeas petition.
We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

U.S.

F.3d

relief

is

circumstances.
394,

509,

402

516-17

available

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

the

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
used as a substitute for appeal.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Williams is not available by way
of mandamus.
mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writs of
With

respect

to

Williams’

request

for

a

writ

of

mandamus ordering the Respondent to file a responsive pleading,
as

the

Respondent

has

answered
3

Williams’

petition

and

the

Appeal: 13-1532

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/17/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

district court has since dismissed the action, we deny Williams’
petition as moot.

We also grant Williams’ motion to supplement

his petition for a writ of mandamus and deny Williams’ motion to
stay the district court proceedings.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITIONS DENIED

4