N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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 S TOLL
, C UNNINGHAM , and S TARK
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Court ofFederal Claims to issue an “appealable order” or alternatively, “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 A rmy Board for Correction of Military Records ’s den ial of disability retirement b enefits. I n April 2023, t he Court of Federal Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024IN RE PREWITT 2

Claims remand ed to the Board for reconsideration

. I n August 2023, the Board issued a decision granting partial relief by ordering correcti on of Mr. Pr ew itt’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. U nited S tates

, 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 benefits and necessary paperwork for Mr. Pr ew itt to receive benefits

, but hit a stalemate. Mr. Pr ew itt subsequently moved for judgment on the record seeking a higher disability rating

, and t he 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 decision and to dismiss the remainder of the complaint. Those motions remain pending before the trial court.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is onlyavailable where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; ( 2) no adequate alternative ave n ue 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 theultimate relief he is seeking without our immediate intervention b y continuing to pursue his case in the trial courtand then a direct appeal, if necessary, following final judgment. 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 re lief.

Accordingly, Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024IN RE PREWITT 3

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.

June 2 5 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024