UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6787

GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-00132-HEH)

Submitted: November 23, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus in the district court seeking an order compelling the 

state court in which he was being prosecuted to act on his 

claims of federal constitutional violations. The district court 

dismissed his petition as it found Williams had sustained three 

actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for 

failure to state a claim, thus finding that Williams was a 

“three-striker.” Although we conclude that the district court 

erred in so finding, we affirm the district court’s order on an 

alternative ground. 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a 

prisoner who has had three or more actions or appeals dismissed 

as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, may not proceed without prepayment 

of fees unless he is under “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). However, dismissal of an 

action without prejudice for failure to state a claim does not 

count as a “strike” under the PLRA. McLean v. United States, 

566 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Here, the district court relied on three 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006) suits instituted by Williams in finding that he 

was a “three-striker” — Williams v. Vliet, 3:05-cv-621 (E.D. Va. 

June 8, 2006), Williams v. Cavedo, 3:05-cv-842 (E.D. Va. 
3

Feb. 23, 2006), and Williams v. City of Richmond, 3:04-cv-747 

(E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2005). City of Richmond, however, was 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim for 

relief and, therefore, cannot be relied upon in finding Williams 

a “three-striker.” Moreover, while Williams has had many other 

cases dismissed by the district court and other district courts, 

our review of these cases has failed to yield another qualifying 

dismissal.

We therefore conclude that the district court erred in 

finding that Williams had sustained three strikes under the 

PLRA. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court’s order on an 

alternative ground. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 

394, 402 (1976). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a 

writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 

1987). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that:

(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the 

relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear 

duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act 

requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no 

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; 

and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and 

justice in the circumstances. 

In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).
4

In addition, federal courts do not have jurisdiction 

to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. 

Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th 

Cir. 1969), or to review final state court orders. See District 

of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 

(1983). As Williams sought an order compelling a state court to 

act, he was not entitled to the relief he sought in the district 

court.

We therefore affirm the district court’s order 

dismissing Williams’ 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.

AFFIRMED