In re: Larry William, No. 10-2049 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2049 In Re: LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:92-cr-00083-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Sinclair Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Sinclair Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking an order directing the district court to grant discovery in his 1992 criminal convictions. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to either of these forms of relief. A writ of prohibition will not issue unless it clearly appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176 (1886). A writ of prohibition or mandamus is a drastic remedy that should be granted only where 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). Further, a writ of prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief. In re Banker s Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985). Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief U.S. F.3d is circumstances. 509, 394, 402 516-17 available only clear right to the relief sought. (1976); (4th when Cir. the v. United United 2003). States States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 2 Kerr The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of a writ of prohibition or mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition. 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
