In re: Gary Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 3, 2023
• Docket: 23-1845
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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