Court Opinion

ID: 9882045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:04.487934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:37.691602
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1845      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1845

        In re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:23-cv-00235-HEH-MRC)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1845      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gary Buterra Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order instructing

        the district court to consider the merits of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and

        directing District Judge Hudson to recuse himself. We conclude that Williams is not

        entitled to mandamus relief.

               Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). And

        mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 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. In particular,

        while mandamus may be used to seek recusal of a district judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d

        818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), Williams’ conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant

        recusal, see Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we

        deny the petition for writ of mandamus and Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel.

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

                                                     2