`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: RICHARD RALPH MALCOLM,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2022-132
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00505-SSS, Judge
`Stephen S. Schwartz.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION AND MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Richard Ralph Malcolm petitions for a writ of manda-
`
`mus seeking, inter alia, an order from this court directing
`the United States Court of Federal Claims to file his motion
`for summary judgment. Mr. Malcolm also moves for leave
`to proceed in forma pauperis.
`Mr. Malcolm filed this suit with the Court of Federal
`Claims seeking retroactive medical disability retirement.
`In August 2021, the Court of Federal Claims remanded to
`the Board for Correction of Naval Records to consider Mr.
`Malcolm’s evidence. Following the Board’s decision on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-132 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: MALCOLM
`
`remand, the Court of Federal Claims issued a scheduling
`order on March 7, 2022, that, inter alia, directed the gov-
`ernment to supplement the administrative record with the
`record from the remand proceedings by March 14, 2022,
`and directed Mr. Malcolm to file any motion for judgment
`on the administrative record by April 13, 2022.
`On March 8, 2022, Mr. Malcolm filed a motion for sum-
`mary judgment. On the same day, the Court of Federal
`Claims issued an order rejecting the filing. The court ex-
`plained that the filing did not comply with the court’s rules
`because it lacked the case caption and the name of the pre-
`siding judge. The court further explained that any motion
`for summary judgment would be premature and unneces-
`sary at that juncture given that the administrative record
`had not yet been filed. This petition followed.
`Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
`where the petitioner shows: (1) there are no adequate al-
`ternative legal channels through which he may obtain that
`relief; (2) a clear and indisputable right to relief; and (3)
`the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circum-
`stances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
`380–81 (2004). Mr. Malcolm has not shown any clear error
`in the March 8, 2022, rejection order. Mr. Malcolm also has
`readily available alternative means to raise the same argu-
`ments for judgment by filing a motion for judgment on the
`administrative record by April 13, 2022, or other motions
`that comply with the trial court’s rules and orders.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-132 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2022
`
`IN RE: MALCOLM
`
` 3
`
`(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
`is denied as moot.
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`April 15, 2022
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
