Paul Schultz's 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 is not appropriate as a substitute for appeal and that Schultz did not demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought. The petition and a related stay motion 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, case number 26-1018. Schultz sought to compel the district court to vacate previous orders and to refer alleged fraudulent activities to law enforcement. The court cited precedent establishing mandamus as a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances and not as a substitute for appeal, concluding Schultz failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief requested.

This decision means the district court's prior orders remain in effect, and Schultz's requests for intervention by law enforcement and disciplinary authorities have been rejected. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not serve as binding precedent. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this pertains to an individual litigant's procedural request.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 26-1018 In re: PAUL SCHULT Z, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Manda mus to the United St ates District C ourt for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:25- cv -01334-LMB-ID D; 1:25- cv -01335-LMB- IDD) Submitted: January 29, 2026 Decided: February 12, 2026 Before WILKINSON, KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unp ublished per curiam op inion. Paul Schultz, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Paul Schultz petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to vacate or ders entered against him and reque sting this cou rt to refer allegedly fraudulent activities to various law enforce ment agencies and disciplinary author ities. Schultz further request s that this court stay the proceedings belo w pending the resolution of this petition. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy a nd should be used only i n extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Di st. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In 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 cle ar right to the relief sought an d “has no ot her adequate me ans to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (citat ion modified). We conclude that the relief sought by Schultz is not available by way of mandamus beca use mandamus may not be used as a subs titute for appeal, and Sc hultz has not demonstrated a clear right to the r elief sought. In re Lockheed Marti n 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 motion for a stay pending res olution of the mandamus p etition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before this co urt and argument w ould not aid the decisi onal process. PETITION DENIED