In Re: Pyne v. , 231 F. App'x 295 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6164
In Re: CHARLES PYNE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition
(No. 8:04-cr-00018-AW)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: July 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Pyne, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Kehinde Pyne petitions for a writ of prohibition
seeking an order preventing District Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.,
from participating in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceedings,
transferring the action to another judge, and vacating all
“discretionary judicial actions” taken by Judge Williams subsequent
to his recusal during the pre-trial hearing. We conclude Pyne 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).
Because it is a drastic remedy, a writ of prohibition should only
be granted 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), and
there are no other adequate means of relief, In re Bankers Trust
Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985). A writ of prohibition may
not be used as a substitute for the normal appellate process.
Missouri, 664 F.2d at 180.
Pyne has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the
relief he seeks. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny Pyne’s motion for release and petition for
a writ of prohibition. 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 -