Case Name: In re: Charles PYNE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-05
Citations: 231 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 07-6164
Parties: In re: Charles PYNE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
In re: Charles PYNE, Petitioner.
No. 07-6164.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: July 5, 2007.
Charles Pyne, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601 (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.