In re: Kristin Tkach-Pelgrim

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1464

In re: KRISTIN ANN TKACH-PELGRIM,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore. (1:25-cr-00282-BAH-1)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 21, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristin Ann Tkach-Pelgrim, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Kristin Tkach-Pelgrim petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to (1) conduct a detention review hearing and release her on her own
recognizance, (2) enforce its competency order and facilitate her transfer for a competency
evaluation or dismiss the competency proceedings, and (3) conduct a Faretta hearing to
determine if she is competent to stand trial and represent herself. She also seeks an order
finding her pretrial detention unlawful under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We conclude that
Tkach-Pelgrim 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court denied Tkach-Pelgrim’s petition
for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and her request for immediate release, and
she did not appeal. Moreover, Tkach-Pelgrim’s competency evaluation has now been
completed. We therefore conclude that the relief sought by Tkach-Pelgrim is not available
by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED