In Re GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-01673- TMD Fed. Cl. Aug. 31, 2023 Dkt. No. 38 at 19 .…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE PREWITT 2
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: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE PREWITT 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
June 25, 2024
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 24-119 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 3 of 3 --