Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Gary Williams, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views4 pages
    Gary Williams filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders from the appellate court related to four separate cases in district court. The appellate court denied the petitions, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court determined the relief Williams sought was not available through mandamus and denied the petitions, considering one petition moot based on subsequent court actions. The court also granted Williams' motion to supplement one petition but denied his motion to stay district court proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1532

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gary Williams filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders from the appellate court related to four separate cases in district court. The appellate court denied the petitions, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court determined the relief Williams sought was not available through mandamus and denied the petitions, considering one petition moot based on subsequent court actions. The court also granted Williams' motion to supplement one petition but denied his motion to stay district court proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views4 pages

    In Re: Gary Williams, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gary Williams filed four petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders from the appellate court related to four separate cases in district court. The appellate court denied the petitions, finding that mandamus relief is only available in extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner has a clear right to relief. The court determined the relief Williams sought was not available through mandamus and denied the petitions, considering one petition moot based on subsequent court actions. The court also granted Williams' motion to supplement one petition but denied his motion to stay district court proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    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.

    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.

    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

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

    Assn, 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

    writ

    of

    mandamus ordering the Respondent to file a responsive pleading,


    as

    the

    Respondent

    has

    answered
    3

    Williams

    petition

    and

    the

    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

    You might also like