Federal Circuit disposition — 25-141

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE TIMCHUK 2
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.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-141 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 2 --