Lisa Richardson Henderson Mandamus Petition Denied
Summary
Lisa Richardson Henderson filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourth Circuit seeking to direct the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to enforce attorney admission requirements, correct the record, address procedural violations, provide due process, and consider certain evidence in her underlying bankruptcy case (No. 17-11389). The Fourth Circuit denied the petition in a per curiam ruling on April 23, 2026, finding that mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances when the petitioner has a clear right to relief and no adequate alternative means, and that it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Henderson's concurrent motion to accelerate case processing was denied as moot.
“Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.”
About this source
The Fourth Circuit hears federal appeals from district courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The court has historically had outsized influence on federal criminal procedure, qualified immunity doctrine, environmental regulation, and immigration enforcement, partly because its docket draws cases from EDVA, the so-called rocket docket that runs the country's fastest civil litigation. This feed tracks every published opinion as it appears on the court's official docket, around 250 a month. GovPing logs the case name, panel, type, and outcome. Watch this if you brief federal appeals in the mid-Atlantic, advise on Section 1983 claims, or follow the EDVA patent and trade secrets docket. Recent: a Baby Doe protective order appeal, a Fourth Amendment excessive force vacation in Nichols v Bumgarner.
What changed
The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Lisa Richardson Henderson, a pro se petitioner, challenging various procedural rulings and record-keeping decisions by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in her underlying bankruptcy case No. 17-11389. The court applied the well-established standard that mandamus relief is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, available only when the petitioner demonstrates a clear right to the relief sought and no adequate alternative means of obtaining it, and that mandamus cannot substitute for a direct appeal. Because Henderson's requested relief fell within the scope of ordinary appellate review, the petition was denied. Her motion to accelerate case processing was dismissed as moot.
Affected parties — particularly pro se litigants in the Fourth Circuit — should note that mandamus is not a procedural vehicle for challenging routine bankruptcy court rulings or record corrections. Litigants seeking review of bankruptcy court decisions must pursue the standard appellate路径 (appeal to the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel) rather than attempting mandamus as a shortcut. This unpublished opinion is not binding precedent within the circuit.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing 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.
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.
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
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for 4th Circuit Daily Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from 4th Circuit.
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.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when 4th Circuit Daily Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.