In Re: Gary Williams , 528 F. App'x 380 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED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.
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Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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 extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. 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. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writs of
mandamus. With respect to Williams’ request for a writ of
mandamus ordering the Respondent to file a responsive pleading,
as the Respondent has answered Williams’ petition and the
3
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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITIONS DENIED
4