Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR., Petitioner ______________________

2024-119 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-01673-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Court of Federal Claims to issue an “appealable order” or alterna- tively, “directing the defendant to deposit my retirement benefits into the registry of the CFC.” ECF No. 2 at 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(3), 1651. In November 2022, Mr. Prewitt filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’s denial of disabil- ity retirement benefits. In April 2023, the Court of Federal Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024

2 IN RE PREWITT

Claims remanded to the Board for reconsideration. In Au- gust 2023, the Board issued a decision granting partial re- lief by ordering correction of Mr. Prewitt’s records to indicate that “he was retired for permanent disability with a 30 percent disability rating effective 11 March 1970, with placement on the Permanent Disability Retired List the following day.” Prewitt v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-01673- TMD (Fed. Cl. Aug. 31, 2023) (Dkt. No. 38 at 19). Following the Board’s decision, the parties attempted to resolve various issues, including the calculation of bene- fits and necessary paperwork for Mr. Prewitt to receive benefits, but hit a stalemate. Mr. Prewitt subsequently moved for judgment on the record seeking a higher disabil- ity rating, and the government filed a cross-motion for judgment on the record asking the Court of Federal Claims to find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s deci- sion and to dismiss the remainder of the complaint. Those motions remain pending before the trial court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indis- putable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Mr. Prewitt has not shown entitlement to relief under this standard. Mr. Prewitt can obtain the ultimate relief he is seeking without our immediate inter- vention by continuing to pursue his case in the trial court and then a direct appeal, if necessary, following final judg- ment. As to Mr. Prewitt’s request to direct the trial court to issue an appealable order, Mr. Prewitt’s case in the Court of Federal Claims is proceeding, and we cannot say he has shown any egregious delay in resolution of the case that might warrant mandamus relief. Accordingly, Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024

IN RE PREWITT 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT

June 25, 2024 Date