In re: Mawule Tepe ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1088 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1088
In re: MAWULE TEPE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a Writ of Quo Warranto, and Writ of Prohibition to
the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
(3:23-cv-00423-RJC-DCK)
Submitted: February 20, 2024 Decided: November 5, 2024
Before KING, WYNN, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mawule Tepe, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1088 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Mawule Tepe petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition, seeking an
order from this court directing the district court to schedule a case management conference
while appeal No. 23-1976 is pending and to hold a hearing on pending motions, directing
several Defendants in his civil action to show cause, prohibiting several Defendants in the
action from representing themselves pro se, prohibiting several attorneys from representing
any person in the action, prohibiting the magistrate judge from presiding over the action,
and directing the district court to assign a different and impartial judge to the action. Tepe
also petitions for a writ of quo warranto, seeking an order from this court directing the
magistrate judge and district court to demonstrate their authority to act. We conclude that
Tepe is not entitled to mandamus, prohibition, or quo warranto relief.
Writs of mandamus and prohibition are drastic remedies to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)
(mandamus); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) (prohibition). Writs of
prohibition and mandamus may not be used as substitutes for appeal. In re Lockheed
Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at
1468 (prohibition). Relief under these writs is available only when the party seeking relief
shows that his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable” and he has “no other
adequate means” to obtain the relief he desires. In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788,
795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relief Tepe seeks is not
available by way of mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, we deny these portions of
Tepe’s petition.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1088 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
As to Tepe’s request for a writ of quo warranto, a private individual lacks standing
to institute a quo warranto proceeding. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S.
537, 545-46 (1915). Thus, this portion of Tepe’s petition must be denied.
Accordingly, we deny Tepe’s petition, deny his motions for costs and to expedite
and accelerate decision, and 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
3