In Re: Dixon v. ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2186
In Re: THOMAS D. DIXON, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
(1:05-cr-00131-RDB; 1:05-cr-00599-RDB)
Submitted: December 8, 2006 Decided: January 10, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas D. Dixon, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas D. Dixon, Jr., petitions this court for a writ of
prohibition, seeking an order directing the district court to
enjoin all criminal proceedings in Case No. 1:05-cr-00131-RDB and
Case No. 1:05-cr-00599-RDB. We conclude that Dixon is not entitled
to relief.
A writ of prohibition should not issue unless it “clearly
appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its
jurisdiction.” Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176 (1886). A writ
of prohibition is a drastic remedy that should be granted only when
the petitioner’s right to the requested relief is clear and
indisputable. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983);
In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). Further, a writ
of prohibition should be granted only when the petitioner has no
other adequate means of relief, In re Banker’s Trust Co., 775 F.2d
545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985), and a writ of prohibition may not be used
as a substitute for the normal appellate process. Missouri, 664
F.2d at 180.
Dixon asserts that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in both criminal prosecutions. However,
Dixon’s petition for a writ of prohibition is moot with respect to
Case No. 1:05-cr-00131-RDB, as that case was dismissed on
November 6, 2006. With respect to Case No. 1:05-cr-00599-RDB,
Dixon has failed to demonstrate that his right to relief is clear
- 2 -
and indisputable, or that this matter cannot be considered through
the normal appellate process. Accordingly, because Dixon may
challenge any adverse final judgment of the district court by
direct appeal, the relief he seeks in this proceeding is not
available. We therefore deny the petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -