OPINION

Petitioner George Trammell, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus. Because Trammell has not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition.

As the Delaware Court of Chancery aptly characterized his filings in that forum, Trammell’s present petition is “an incomprehensible miasma” and is virtually unintelligible. Construing it liberally, as we must, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)), it appears his petition is rooted in the decision to remove Tram-mell from his position as the administrator of his late father’s estate. As a result, he contends that he is being forced to sell his home at auction. Trammell has twice sought removal to federal court to challenge the sale, and each time his suits have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Trammell v. Trammell, No. 12-cv-0014, 2012 WL 293164 (D.De. Jan. 23, 2012); Trammell v. Trammell, *112 No. 11-cv-0793 (D.De. Nov. 28, 2011). 1 He now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States Marshalls Service or the National Guard to prevent the scheduled auction of his property while he continues to litigate his claims. He argues that because the state court’s decision was incorrect, the order it issued directing the sale of his home was beyond its subject matter jurisdiction. 2

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking mandamus must demonstrate, among other things, a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam). Trammell has not done so, and we will therefore deny his petition. The motion for future attorney’s fees are denied.