USCA4 Appeal: 25-1011 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1011

In re: PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: February 12, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pakuja Crystal Vang, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1011 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Pakuja Crystal Vang petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking, among other relief,

a hearing on her application for social security benefits; an award of social security

benefits; legal and medical assistance; the filing of criminal charges against others; and

enforcement of her rights as an alleged crime victim under

. Vang also

expresses dissatisfaction with her lack of success pursuing similar relief in many lawsuits

filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. We

conclude that Vang is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC,

(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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown,

(alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Vang has not shown that she has a clear right to the relief sought and that she has

no other adequate means to attain such relief. See

Moreover, insofar as Vang is

unhappy with the results of her prior lawsuits, she may not use mandamus as a substitute

for an appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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