Full Opinion

Case: 26-152 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 10/26/2026 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re SHARON THURMAN, Petitioner ______________________ 2026-152 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Nos. 18-5729, 22- 4861, and 22-4862. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ Before CHEN, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Sharon Thurman petitions this court for a writ of man- damus for various relief related to a veterans benefits claim.1 1 Ms. Thurman also moves to change her filing and service selection and submits an amended Notice of Unrep- resented Person Appearance, electing to file all documents in paper form by mail or in person and to receive all service Case: 26-152 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 10/26/2026 2 IN RE THURMAN On May 12, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded Ms. Thurman’s claim for ac- crued benefits for readjudication at the agency level. Thur- man v. McDonough, No. 18-5729 (Vet. App. May 12, 2022).2 Ms. Thurman contends that she received no notice of the remand decision and learned about it only after being con- tacted by an appointed representative for her case. She also states that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a post-remand decision on November 17, 2022, denying her claim. Ms. Thurman argues that she “had no meaningful op- portunity to participate” in the remand proceedings and has been provided “incomplete or inaccessible” records from the Board in response to her requests. Pet. at 3. She asks this court to direct the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to, inter alia, provide “the complete service record” for her cases, determine whether she received “legally suf- ficient notice” of the May 2022 decision, direct “reconstruc- tion of the docket,” adjudicate her “January 2023 attempted appeal” including whether equitable tolling or recalling the mandate is warranted, and correct the record to identify her as pro se. Pet. at 1. Issuance of a writ “is a drastic and extraordinary rem- edy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (cleaned up). A petitioner must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain the relief [s]he desires,” (2) a “clear and by mail. The court grants the motion and accepts the amended Notice. 2 Ms. Thurman subsequently filed at least one peti- tion at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for ex- traordinary relief regarding her accrued benefits claim, which was dismissed as moot, Thurman v. McDonough, No. 22-4861 (Vet. App. Sept. 26, 2022). Case: 26-152 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 10/26/2026 IN RE THURMAN 3 indisputable” right to relief, and (3) the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. at 380–81 (citation omitted). Ms. Thurman has not met that demanding standard. To the extent that Ms. Thurman is seeking to compel the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’s review of the Board’s November 2022 post-remand decision or to compel that court to make certain determinations in furtherance of such review, she has not shown mandamus is appropri- ate for such relief. Nor has she shown that mandamus is appropriate or the only available means to obtain records regarding service of the May 2022 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Ms. Thurman’s motion to change her filing and ser- vice selection, ECF No. 7, is granted, and her amended No- tice of Unrepresented Person Appearance, ECF No. 7 at 3, is accepted. (2) The petition and all other pending motions are de- nied. FOR THE COURT October 26, 2026 Date