In re: Stephane J. Wantou Siantou

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1747
In re: STEPHANE J. WANTOU SIANTOU,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:17-cv-00543-PWG)
Submitted: July 28, 2022 Decided: August 9, 2022
Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephane J. Wantou Siantou, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephane J. Wantou Siantou filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the
district court has exhibited bias and abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over a
motion for attorney’s fees. We deny the petition.
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 (cleaned up). “A district
judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this circuit by way of a petition for
a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). And a petitioner
may challenge an “unlawful exercise of jurisdiction” by way of mandamus. In re Lowe,
102 F.3d 731, 733 (4th Cir. 1996).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Wantou is not entitled to mandamus
relief. Therefore, we deny his mandamus petition and his motion for a stay of the district
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 of 2 --