Case: 25-141 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re PAUL VLADIMIROVICH TIMCHUK, Petitioner ______________________ 2025-141 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board in No. SF-0752-25-0144-I-1. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER On April 7, 2025, an administrative judge (AJ) of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed Paul Vladimiro- vich Timchuk’s removal from federal employment. From his filings here, it appears that Mr. Timchuk, on July 21, 2025, attempted to file at the Board an “Emergency Motion to Vacate Initial Decision and Stay Proceedings Pending Restoration of Lawful MSPB Quorum,” but that filing was rejected as improper. ECF No. 2 at 7. He now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking various relief.

The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “nec- essary or appropriate in aid of their respective Case: 25-141 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

2 IN RE TIMCHUK

jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is an ex- traordinary remedy available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no ad- equate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that manda- mus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Timchuk has not met this demanding standard here.

As to Mr. Timchuk’s challenge to the Board’s rejection of his motion: the Board informed Mr. Timchuk of its regu- lations that require a party to first file a motion for leave to submit a pleading other than one of those listed in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(1)–(3), and insofar as this court has been made aware, Mr. Timchuk has not filed such a mo- tion. Under such circumstances, we cannot say that Mr. Timchuk’s right to file his “Emergency Motion” is indisput- ably clear or that mandamus relief is the only available av- enue by which he can get his motion filed. As to Mr. Timchuk’s request to pause the foreclosure of his home: we cannot grant such relief because that request is outside our limited subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: ECF No. 2 is denied.

FOR THE COURT

September 11, 2025 Date