Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03122/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Eugene Gibbs
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MELVIN EUGENE GIBBS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3122

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-14-0841-W-1.

______________________ 

Decided: August 31, 2015 

______________________ 

MELVIN EUGENE GIBBS, Florence, SC, pro se.

JEFFREY GAUGER, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, 

DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 15-3122 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/31/2015
2 GIBBS v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Melvin Eugene Gibbs appeals from the final order of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing

his whistleblower appeal under the doctrine of laches. 

Because the allegations before the Board support dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Gibbs claims to be entitled to relief based on a series of events dating back to March of 1987, when he was 

an employee of a government agency1 under the Department of Defense. His allegations are as follows: As part 

of a dispute about reimbursement of his travel expenses, 

he discovered that his superior, a colonel, was misusing 

funds. He reported this misuse. Shortly thereafter, he 

was reassigned to a position that would have placed him

on a “fast track” from the GS-11 to the GS-12 pay grade. 

The colonel, angry that Mr. Gibbs reported the misuse of 

funds, retaliated by removing him from this desirable

position. Shortly after these events, a psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Gibbs with a mental illness. On this psychiatrist’s recommendation, he was placed on permanentdisability leave. The psychiatrist also recommended that 

Mr. Gibbs not pursue legal action against his employer. 

On February 12, 2014—nearly 27 years after the alleged retaliation—Mr. Gibbs filed a complaint under the 

Whistleblower Protection Act with the Office of Special 

Counsel. What remedy Mr. Gibbs sought is unclear from 

the record before us, but he appears to have alleged that 

but for the retaliatory action, he would have been promoted from the GS-11 to the GS-12 pay grade on a “fast 

track.” He presumably takes the position that this pro1 Mr. Gibbs does not identify the agency that employed him.

 

Case: 15-3122 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/31/2015
GIBBS v. MSPB 3

motion would have entitled him to an increase in the 

leave pay that he claims to have received. After investigating his allegations, the Office of Special Counsel closed 

his file on April 17, 2014, and Mr. Gibbs timely appealed 

this determination to the Board. On a motion by the 

Department of Defense, the administrative judge issued 

an initial decision dismissing the appeal pursuant to the

doctrine of laches. The Board affirmed this decision and 

made it final.

Mr. Gibbs appeals the Board’s final decision, attacking its conclusion that his delay was not excused. 

DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 1221(h) and 7703(b)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). We 

affirm the Board’s decision unless it was (1) arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures 

required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; 

or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 

7703(c).

In order to prevail on its defense of laches, the government must show “(1) unreasonable and unexcused 

delay in bringing the claim, and (2) material prejudice to 

the defendant as a result of the delay.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., 988 F.2d 1157, 

1161 (1993) (citing A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides 

Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en 

banc)). We review the Board’s dismissal de novo. See 

Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009).

The Board did not err in its determination that laches 

bars Mr. Gibbs’ action. Mr. Gibbs concedes that he delayed filing by 27 years. He also does not dispute the 

government’s claims that this 27-year delay materially 

prejudiced its ability to defend against his allegations. 

Case: 15-3122 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/31/2015
4 GIBBS v. MSPB

His sole argument that laches does not apply is that this 

significant period of delay was reasonable or excused 

because of his mental illness and because his psychiatrist 

advised him against filing. Even assuming—as we must

on a motion to dismiss—that Mr. Gibbs will be able to

substantiate these claims, they cannot excuse a 27-year 

delay. 

We have considered Mr. Gibbs’ remaining arguments 

and do not find them persuasive.2

AFFIRMED

No costs.

2 Mr. Gibbs also seeks an order of summary judgment in his favor. That request, which the Board did not 

consider, is not properly before us.

 

Case: 15-3122 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/31/2015