Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02208/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02208-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Buterra Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2208

In Re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(4:08-cr-00087-RGD-FBS-1)

Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-2208 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order compelling the district court to adjudicate his 

motion to dismiss the indictment on the merits. The district 

court had directed the clerk to return Williams’ motion to 

dismiss to him because an interlocutory appeal Williams had 

filed was pending with this court. The district court order 

further directed the clerk to decline to file additional 

pleadings in the matter until Williams’ appeal was “resolved by 

the Fourth Circuit.” We conclude that Williams is not entitled 

to mandamus relief.

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). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987).

Here, Williams has failed to demonstrate that there 

are no other adequate means to obtain the relief he desires. 

Specifically, because the pending appeal in this court that 

served as a basis for the district court’s order has concluded, 

the filing restriction imposed by the district court has abated 

and Williams is now free to re-file his motion to dismiss. 

Appeal: 09-2208 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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

Appeal: 09-2208 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 3 of 3