In re: Andrew Aquila

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1269 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/11/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1269 In re: ANDREW AQUILA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:25-cv-00453-RDA-WBP) Submitted: April 7, 2025 Decided: April 11, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew A. Aquila, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1269 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/11/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Andrew A. Aquila petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order (1) declaring that the district court erred in remanding to the state court the cases that Aquila removed to the district court and (2) enjoining the state courts from acting on the cases he sought to remove. He also filed a motion for a stay of the state court proceedings pending resolution of his mandamus petition. We conclude that Aquila is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Upon review, we conclude that the relief Aquila seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, and we deny Aquila’s motion for a stay of the state court proceedings. 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 2