Case Name: In re: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-18
Citations: 370 F. App'x 380
Docket Number: No. 09-2208
Parties: In re: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
In re: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
No. 09-2208.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 5, 2010.
Decided: March 18, 2010.
Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 Disk Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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. Accord-
ingly, 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.