Paul Schultz Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 12th, 2026

Detected February 13th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Paul Schultz's petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that mandamus relief was not appropriate as a substitute for appeal and that Schultz had not demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought. The petition and a motion for a stay were denied.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Paul Schultz's petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the bankruptcy court to vacate orders, remove parties, and conduct proceedings impartially. The court cited that mandamus is a drastic remedy, only available in extraordinary circumstances and not as a substitute for appeal. Schultz's petition was denied because he failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought.

This decision means the bankruptcy court's previous orders remain in effect, and the requested actions by Schultz will not be mandated by the appellate court. As the petition and stay were denied, the underlying bankruptcy proceedings will continue as previously scheduled. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is a specific case ruling.

Source document (simplified)

UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 26-1019 In re: PAUL DAVID SCHULTZ, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Ea stern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (24-11959- KHK; 24-01058- KHK) Submitted: Januar y 29, 2026 Decided: February 12, 2026 Before WILKINSON, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unp ublished per curiam opinion. Paul Schultz, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Paul Schultz petitions for a writ of man damus, seeking an or der fr om this court directing the ban kruptcy court to vacat e ord ers entered against him, remove allege dly conflicted parties from further participation i n the proceedings, and conduc t pro ceedings before an impartial trustee. Schultz further requests that this court refer alle gedly fraudulent activities to various law enf orcement agencies and disciplinary authorities and stay the proceeding s below pending the res olution of this petition. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinar y circumstances. Che ney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); I n re Murphy-Brow n, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 79 5 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandam us relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief so ught and “has no ot her adequate me ans to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 79 5 (citat ion modified). We conclude that the relief sought by Schultz is not available by way of mandamus because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, and Schultz has not demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we deny the emergency peti tion for a writ of mandamus and deny the emergency mo tion for a stay pending resolution of the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument w ould not aid the decisi onal process. PETITION DENIED