USCA4 Appeal: 24-2117 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2117

In re: MARK DOWNEY, Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:19-cv-00233-LMB-IDD; 3:19-cv-00156-HEH)

Submitted: December 4, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Downey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2117 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Mark Downey petitions this court for an extraordinary writ, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Fed. R. App. P. 21, seeking an order quashing a prefiling injunction that was entered against him in the Eastern District of Virginia. We conclude that Downey is not entitled to an extraordinary writ for the relief he seeks.

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” “The authority to issue a writ under the All Writs Act is not a font of jurisdiction.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 914 (2009). Rather, this court’s authority to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act “is only incidental to and in aid of [its] appellate jurisdiction, which Congress has given it over district courts, and administrative boards and agencies.” Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 520 (1956).

The relief sought by Downey is not available by way of an extraordinary writ. * Accordingly, we deny Downey’s motion for reimbursement of the filing fee, his motion for free access to legal resources and other relief, and his petition for an extraordinary writ.

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

* To the extent Downey’s petition could be construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus, we likewise conclude that such relief is not available. See 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).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2117 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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

PETITION DENIED