Case: 25-104 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re THERESA GARNER, Petitioner ______________________

2025-104 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00795-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Theresa Garner petitions this court for a writ of man- damus directing the United States Court of Federal Claims to enter default judgment against the United States and for other procedural and monetary relief. ECF No. 2 at 2. Ms. Garner also moves for a stay and “remand” to the Of- fice of Personnel Management (“OPM”). ECF No. 3. Ms. Garner’s underlying complaint alleges, among other things, that OPM made unauthorized changes to her personnel records and has refused to correct them. On Au- gust 8, 2024, the trial court denied Ms. Garner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissed several of her claims, Case: 25-104 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2025

2 IN RE GARNER

and granted leave to amend her complaint, which Ms. Gar- ner filed on September 5, 2024. Since that time, Ms. Garner has filed numerous mo- tions, many of which the trial court denied. As relevant here, the court denied her motion for default judgment by order of September 30, 2024, and, on October 11, 2024, de- nied Ms. Garner’s request to immediately rule on her mo- tion to remand to OPM and to hold the government’s pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint in abey- ance until the court rules on her remand request. Ms. Gar- ner then filed this petition and motion, which this court understands as challenging those rulings. To establish entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain the relief [she] desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (cleaned up). Ms. Garner has failed to make that demand- ing showing. She has not shown entitlement to granting her motions for default judgment and remand; nor has she shown why her arguments cannot adequately be addressed in a typical appeal from final judgment. C.f. Roche v. Evap- orated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (noting manda- mus is not a substitute for an appeal). Additionally, to the extent Ms. Garner is challenging the trial court’s decision to not rule immediately on her re- mand request, we cannot say she has shown a clear right to relief. The trial court concluded that the most efficient way to resolve the remand request was not to rule immedi- ately on her motion because, if the court were to find it lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, it would also be powerless to grant her request for remand. We are not pre- pared to say that conclusion was so far outside the trial court’s considerable discretion in managing its own docket Case: 25-104 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2025

IN RE GARNER 3

to take the extraordinary step of issuing mandamus. See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition and all pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

January 17, 2025 Date