In re: Paul David Schultz

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paul Schultz petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court
directing the bankruptcy court to vacate orders entered against him, remove allegedly
conflicted parties from further participation in the proceedings, and conduct proceedings
before an impartial trustee. Schultz further requests that this court refer allegedly
fraudulent activities to various law enforcement agencies and disciplinary authorities and
stay the proceedings below pending the resolution of this petition.
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 [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (citation 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 petition for a writ of mandamus and deny the
emergency motion for a stay pending resolution of the mandamus petition. 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

-- 2 of 2 --