In Re THERESA GARNER v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 cleaned up . Ms. Garner has…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE GARNER 2
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: 2 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition and all pending motions are denied.
January 17, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-104 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2025

-- 3 of 3 --