Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal In re Lisa Henderson - Mandamus Petition Denied
Routine Enforcement Amended Final

In re Lisa Henderson - Mandamus Petition Denied

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com 4th Circuit Opinions
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The Fourth Circuit denied Lisa Richardson Henderson's petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the bankruptcy court to enforce attorney admission requirements, correct the record, address procedural violations, provide due process, and consider certain evidence. The court applied the standard that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief and may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

“The relief Henderson seeks is not available by way of mandamus.”

Published by 4th Circuit on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors 4th Circuit Opinions for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 7 changes logged to date.

What changed

Henderson sought a writ of mandamus directing the bankruptcy court to enforce attorney admission requirements, correct the record, address procedural violations, provide due process, and consider certain evidence. The Fourth Circuit applied the standard that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Since the relief sought is not available by way of mandamus, the petition was denied.

Parties seeking review of bankruptcy court decisions should pursue direct appeal rather than mandamus, as the court reiterated that mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal.

Archived snapshot

Apr 25, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Lisa Henderson

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Combined Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1020 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1020

In re: LISA RICHARDSON HENDERSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (17-11389)

Submitted: April 2, 2026 Decided: April 23, 2026

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Richardson Henderson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 26-1020 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Richardson Henderson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

directing the bankruptcy court to enforce attorney admission requirements, correct the

record, address procedural violations, provide due process, and consider certain evidence. *

We conclude that Henderson 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 (citation modified). And

mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.” In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503

F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief Henderson seeks 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 presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

*
Henderson has also filed a motion to accelerate case processing. We deny that
motion as moot.

2

Get daily alerts for 4th Circuit Opinions

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from 4th Circuit.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
4th Circuit
Filed
April 23rd, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor
Document ID
No. 26-1020
Docket
26-1020

Who this affects

Applies to
Courts
Industry sector
5411 Legal Services
Activity scope
Bankruptcy proceedings Mandamus actions
Geographic scope
United States US

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Bankruptcy

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when 4th Circuit Opinions publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!