Kristin E. Schelin; Mark A. Watson v. Karl Linard Malloy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1700
KRISTIN E. SCHELIN; MARK A. WATSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
and
MEGAN NAPIER; JAMES T. NAPIER; MICHAEL P. LAFAYETTE,
Appellees,
v.
KARL LINARD MALLOY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:24-cv-00729-MHL)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin A. Lake, MCDONALD, SUTTON &
DUVAL, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Karl Linard Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeals
from 10 bankruptcy court orders quashing subpoenas and imposing sanctions. The district
court dismissed the appeals as moot, reasoning that the hearings for which the subpoenas
were issued had concluded and reversal of the bankruptcy court’s orders quashing the
subpoenas would have no practical effect.
An appeal becomes moot when a court “is without the power to afford effective
relief.” Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96
(4th Cir. 1988). Although the hearings for which the witnesses were subpoenaed had
concluded and reversal of the orders quashing subpoenas would not affect Malloy’s ability
to present testimony by these witnesses, the orders from which Malloy appealed also
imposed sanctions and Malloy challenged the sanctions on appeal to the district court.
Because the district court could grant Malloy some of the relief he requested—by vacating
the sanctions orders—we find that the appeals were not moot.
We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings,
expressing no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of Malloy’s appeal from the bankruptcy
court’s orders. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 2 of 2 --