USCA4 Appeal: 25-2210 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2210

In re: HAMZA TEBIB, individually and derivatively on behalf of his 2 business entities; OWL HOUSE CAFE, LLC; OHCGRILL, LLC,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:25-cv-00358-D-KS)

Submitted: December 11, 2025 Decided: December 19, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hamza Tebib, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2210 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Hamza Tebib, Owl House Café, LLC, and OHCGrill, LLC (“Petitioners”), petition

for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to (1) vacate its order

striking Petitioners’ original complaint; (2) reinstate the original complaint or allow

amendment without arbitrary restrictions; (3) address delays in screening their other

complaints; and (4) ensure impartial adjudication of their complaints.

The first issue is whether the companies may proceed pro se. “It has been the law

for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts

only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory

Council,

(1993). And this “rule applies equally to all artificial

entities,”

, including limited liability companies, see In re Under Seal,

, 290 n.17 (4th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). Accordingly, we conclude that Owl House

Café, LLC, and OHCGrill, LLC, may not proceed pro se and dismiss the mandamus

petition as to those entities.

We next consider whether Tebib, the remaining Petitioner, is entitled to mandamus

relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances,

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,

(4th Cir. 2018), and “may not be used as a substitute for appeal,” In re Lockheed

Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, to the extent Tebib seeks

vacatur of the district court’s order and reinstatement of the original complaint, we

conclude that he is not entitled to mandamus relief.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2210 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/19/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Unreasonable delay in the district court may warrant mandamus relief, see In re

United States ex rel. Drummond,

(5th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases), but

Tebib has not alleged undue delay related to the instant complaint. Similarly, although

mandamus may be used to seek a judge’s recusal, see In re Beard,

(4th

Cir. 1987), Tebib has not clearly requested such relief. Accordingly, we conclude that

Tebib is not entitled to mandamus relief, and we deny the petition as to him.

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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3