Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03020/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Edwards
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLES EDWARDS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3020

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0752-13-0303-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: April 14, 2015

______________________ 

CHARLES EDWARDS, Seattle, WA, pro se.

STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-3020 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2015
2 EDWARDS v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

After untimely submitting his petition for review of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board’s initial decision, 

Charles D. Edwards asked the Board to waive its timely 

filing requirement for good cause. The Board denied 

Mr. Edwards’s request, finding that he did not show that 

the new evidence he submitted was sufficient to change 

the outcome, or that a medical condition prevented him

from timely filing. Because the Board’s decision was not 

an abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

I 

The Department of the Navy terminated Mr. Edwards 

from his position, and he appealed to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. On June 21, 2013, Mr. Edwards and 

the Department agreed to mediate his appeal through the 

Board’s Mediation Appeals Program. During mediation, 

the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which 

was forwarded to the Administrative Judge assigned to 

Mr. Edwards’s appeal. On August 19, 2013, the Board 

issued an initial decision dismissing Mr. Edwards’s appeal due to the settlement agreement. In its Notice of 

Decision, the Board informed Mr. Edwards that he had 

until September 23, 2013 to file a petition for review of 

the Board’s initial decision. 

On November 4, 2013—over seventy days after issuance of the initial decision—Mr. Edwards filed a petition 

for review of the Board’s initial decision. On November 

25, 2013, the Board acknowledged receipt of the petition 

for review, and stated that the petition was untimely. 

The Board issued a deadline of December 10, 2013 for 

Mr. Edwards to file a motion to accept the filing as timely 

or to waive the time limit. 

On December 3, 2013, Mr. Edwards filed a motion to 

waive his December 10, 2013 deadline. This motion 

stated that Mr. Edwards was “requesting time for the 

Case: 15-3020 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/14/2015
EDWARDS v. MSPB 3

lawyers [to] look over the paperwork.” Resp’t’s Appendix 

at 53. 

On December 17, 2013, Mr. Edwards filed a motion to 

waive the September 23, 2013 deadline for a petition to 

review the initial decision. Even though the deadline to 

submit such a motion was December 10, 2013, because of 

Mr. Edwards’s December 3, 2013 motion, the Board 

accepted the motion as timely in a December 18, 2013 

order. 

On August 27, 2014, the Board denied the motion. 

The Board held that Mr. Edwards did not show why the 

new evidence he submitted after the initial decision 

warranted an outcome different from the initial decision. 

The Board also found that although Mr. Edwards had 

included some medical evidence in his motions to waive 

the time limit, it did not show why Mr. Edwards’s medical 

problems prevented him from timely filing. 

Mr. Edwards appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

II

Our review of Board decisions is limited. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c). We cannot reverse a Board’s decision unless it 

is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with the law; (2) obtained 

without procedures required by law, rule or regulation 

having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial 

evidence. Id. 

A petition for review of an administrative judge’s decision must be filed with the Board within 35 days. 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board has discretion to waive 

this requirement if a party requests waiver and shows 

good cause. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12 and 1201.114(f), (g). 

Petitioners seeking a waiver must file “[a] specific and 

detailed description of the circumstances causing the late 

filing, accompanied by supporting documentation or other 

Case: 15-3020 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/14/2015
4 EDWARDS v. MSPB

evidence.” Ford-Clifton v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 661 

F.3d 655, 659 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 

When considering a motion to waive the timely filing 

requirement for good cause, the Board considers the 

length of the delay, the appellant’s notice of the time 

limit, the existence of circumstances beyond the appellant’s control, the appellant’s negligence, any excusable 

neglect, unavoidable casualty or misfortune, and the 

extent and nature of prejudice to the agency. Walls v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 

(citation omitted). “[W]hether the regulatory time limit 

for an appeal should be waived based upon a showing of 

good cause is a matter committed to the Board’s discretion 

and this court will not substitute its own judgment for 

that of the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 

F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Accordingly, an 

appellant bears a “heavy burden” to overturn the Board’s 

determination that good cause has not been shown for an 

untimely filing. Turman-Kent v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 657 

F.3d 1280, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 

omitted). 

Mr. Edwards first asserts that the Board’s December 

18, 2013 order already accepted his petition for review as 

timely filed. However, he misunderstands the Board’s 

order. The Board did not find that the petition for review 

was timely filed, but, rather, that the motion to waive the 

time limit for filing the petition was timely filed. 

We also find no error in the Board’s finding that 

Mr. Edwards did not show good cause. While he did 

submit new evidence after the initial decision, he does not 

explain how this new evidence would change the outcome. 

Thus, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that the new evidence did not justify Mr. Edwards’s 

untimely filing. See Armstrong v. Dep’t of Treasury, 591 

F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[W]e cannot say that it 

was wrong for the MSPB to consider whether [the petiCase: 15-3020 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/14/2015
EDWARDS v. MSPB 5

tioner’s] new evidence was of sufficient weight to warrant 

a different outcome from that of the initial decision.”) 

(internal quotation omitted). 

Additionally, substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s finding that Mr. Edwards’s medical evidence does 

not show good cause for the delay, because it does not 

show that he was ill throughout the entire period of delay

or that this illness prevented him from timely filing. See 

Ford-Clifton, 661 F.3d at 659 (affirming the Board’s 

denial of a motion to waive the timely filing requirement 

where the petition did not “affirmatively identify medical 

evidence that addresses the entire period of delay and 

explain how the illness prevented a timely filing”). One of 

the medical documents is dated June 26, 2013, and does 

not implicate the relevant delay period. And although the 

other is dated during the relevant time period, it actually 

suggests that Mr. Edwards was healthy and able to 

timely file a petition. 

We have considered Mr. Edwards’s other arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we conclude 

that Mr. Edwards has not met his heavy burden of showing reversible error in the Board’s decision not to waive 

the timely filing requirement. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 15-3020 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/14/2015