In Re Gary B. Williams

E.D. Virginia

In Re Gary B. Williams

District Court, E.D. Virginia·Decided January 12, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-01011·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

In Re Gary B. Williams, Civil Action No. 3:25cv1011 (RCY)

Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gary B. Williams, a Virginia inmate, submitted this petition for a writ of mandamus. Williams did not submit the filing fee and presumably seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The pertinent statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Williams has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Williams v. Cavedo, No. 3:13CV672-HEH, 2014 WL 852038 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2014); Williams v. Eason, No. 3:13CV493-HEH, 2014 WL 851994 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2014); Williams v. Collins, No. 7:13CV00375, 2013 WL 5720765 (W.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2013); Williams v. Bowen, No. 3:12cv139-HEH, 2013 WL 5322867 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2013). Williams’s current pleading does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. Accordingly, Williams’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Williams filing a new action with the $405.00 of filing and administrative fees. The Court additionally notes that in his petition for a writ of mandamus, Williams seeks to challenge his state court convictions. This Court previously denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Williams challenging these convictions and, therefore, it cannot entertain a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2254 here. Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:23-CV-235—-HEH, 2023 WL 3026706, at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2023) (citing Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:13CV276—-HEH, 2014 WL 3640344, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2014)). An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ Roderick C. Young United States District Judge Date: January 12, 2026 Richmond, Virginia

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

In Re Gary B. Williams, Civil Action No. 3:25cv1011 (RCY)

Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gary B. Williams, a Virginia inmate, submitted this petition for a writ of mandamus. Williams did not submit the filing fee and presumably seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The pertinent statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Williams has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Williams v. Cavedo, No. 3:13CV672-HEH, 2014 WL 852038 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2014); Williams v. Eason, No. 3:13CV493-HEH, 2014 WL 851994 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2014); Williams v. Collins, No. 7:13CV00375, 2013 WL 5720765 (W.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2013); Williams v. Bowen, No. 3:12cv139-HEH, 2013 WL 5322867 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2013). Williams’s current pleading does not suggest that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. Accordingly, Williams’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Williams filing a new action with the $405.00 of filing and administrative fees. The Court additionally notes that in his petition for a writ of mandamus, Williams seeks to challenge his state court convictions. This Court previously denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Williams challenging these convictions and, therefore, it cannot entertain a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2254 here. Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:23-CV-235—-HEH, 2023 WL 3026706, at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2023) (citing Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:13CV276—-HEH, 2014 WL 3640344, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2014)). An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ Roderick C. Young United States District Judge Date: January 12, 2026 Richmond, Virginia

In Re Gary B. Williams, (E.D. Va. 2026).

Pincite

In Re Gary B. Williams (In Re Gary B. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related