In re: Valerie Arroyo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2460
In re: VALERIE ARROYO,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:17-cv-00721-FDW-DCK; 3:20-cv-00506-
FDW-DSC)
Submitted: January 5, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Valerie Arroyo, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Valerie Arroyo petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to order the
district court to vacate prior judgments. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be
reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th
Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Courts provide mandamus relief only when
(1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner
has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems
the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542
U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). The writ of
mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389
U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the mandamus petition and conclude that Petitioner fails to show
that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny
the pending motions. 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 of 2 --