USCA4 Appeal: 25-1803 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1803

In re: J.E., Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02744-JRR)

Submitted: August 26, 2025 Decided: September 15, 2025

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J.E., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1803 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: J.E. petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court judge to recuse herself from his case, transfer the case to a different venue, and seal the case. He also has filed motions to seal this court’s record, to proceed under a pseudonym, and to stay the district court’s proceedings.

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 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus is available for orders denying motions to transfer in only exceptional situations to review a clear abuse of discretion by a district court judge. Ellicot Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 n.4 (4th Cir. 1974).

We conclude that the relief sought by J.E. is not available by way of mandamus, as he has failed to demonstrate entitlement to such relief. Accordingly, although we grant J.E.’s motion to seal as it pertains to his motion to stay and the exhibits accompanying that motion, we deny his remaining motions, and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1803 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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