In re: Paul Schultz

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1019 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/12/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1019 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/12/2026 Pg: 2 of 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