UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1974

ERIC FLORES,

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of 

Education. 

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Eric Flores, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark L. Gross, Christopher 

Chen-Hsin Wang, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Flores, a resident of El Paso, Texas has filed a 

self-styled petition for review of an agency order, alleging 

discrimination and retaliation by certain members of the 

faculties of the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and 

Austin Community College (ACC) and that the United States 

Department of Education (Department) did not properly review and 

investigate his claims of discrimination and retaliation. 

Flores seeks an order from this court compelling the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement of the Department to 

prohibit UTEP and ACC faculty members from further 

discriminating and retaliating against him and to reinstate him 

as a student at both UTEP and ACC. Flores also seeks review of 

alleged dismissals of his complaints of discrimination and 

retaliation by the Department’s Dallas, Texas, Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR). Respondent moves to dismiss the petition for 

review. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review. 

Although Flores’ petition is styled as a petition for 

review of an agency order, Flores’ requests for relief with 

respect to the UTEP and ACC faculty members and reinstatement as 

a student take the form of a petition for a writ of mandamus or 

a writ of prohibition. Writs of mandamus and prohibition are 

drastic remedies to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 
3

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (writ of 

mandamus); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) 

(writ of prohibition). Relief under these writs is available 

only when the party seeking relief shows that his right to 

relief “is clear and indisputable,” United States v. Moussaoui, 

333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), and that he has “no other adequate means to attain the 

relief he desires.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 

449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). The relief Flores seeks with respect to 

the UTEP and ACC is not available by way of mandamus or 

prohibition. We therefore deny this portion of the petition for 

review. 

Flores also seeks review of the Dallas OCR’s alleged

dismissals of his complaints of discrimination and retaliation. 

In the motion to dismiss the petition for review, Respondent 

argues that we lack jurisdiction to review the OCR’s alleged 

dismissal decisions. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” 

possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and 

statute.” Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 

362 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in this 

court is on Flores, the party asserting it. Id. Contrary to 

Flores’ assertions, the regulations on which he relies, 
4

34 C.F.R. Pt. 100 (2015), do not confer jurisdiction on this 

court to review the Dallas OCR’s alleged dismissals of his 

complaints, and jurisdiction cannot be based on the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 (2012). 

Further, insofar as Flores relies on Rule 15 of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure as a basis for jurisdiction, the 

rule does not confer appellate jurisdiction but, rather, 

addresses the procedures to be utilized in reviewing agency 

orders where a court of appeals is authorized by statute to 

review final agency determinations, Dillard v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Hous. & Urban Dev., 548 F.2d 1142, 1143 (4th Cir. 1977) 

(per curiam), an authorization that is lacking in this case. 

We thus lack jurisdiction to review the Dallas OCR’s alleged 

dismissals of Flores’ complaints and grant Respondent’s motion 

to dismiss this portion of the petition for review. 

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the 

petition for review. We deny Flores’ motions for judicial 

notice and for a preliminary injunction 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 IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART