Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02496/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Gary S. Schnell
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GARY S. SCHNELL,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2496

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. CH-1221-12-0770-W-3, CH-0752-13-0056-I3.

______________________ 

Decided: January 27, 2017

______________________ 

GARY S. SCHNELL, Sparta, WI, pro se.

SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-2496 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2017
2 SCHNELL v. MSPB

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Gary S. Schnell appeals a final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which denied 

his petitions for review of an administrative judge’s (“AJ”) 

initial decisions. See Schnell v. Dep’t of the Army, Nos. 

CH-1221-12-0770-W-3, CH-0752-13-0056-I-3, 2016 WL 

3752331, at ¶ 1 (M.S.P.B. July 13, 2016). In separate 

initial decisions, the AJ had dismissed Mr. Schnell’s 

appeals as untimely refiled. Resp’t’s App. 11, 18. 

“If a party does not submit an appeal within the time 

set by statute, regulation, or order of a judge, it will be 

dismissed as untimely filed unless a good reason for the 

delay is shown.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c) (2015). The MSPB 

has identified several factors that it considers in determining whether good cause warrants waiving a refiling 

deadline. See, e.g., Gaddy v. Dep’t of the Navy, 100 

M.S.P.R. 485, 489 (2005). Of these factors, Mr. Schnell 

argues that the MSPB erred in its analysis of his pro se

status, his confusion over the refiling deadline, and the 

arbitrariness of that deadline. See Pet’r’s Br. 2. 

We review the MSPB’s decision not to waive a refiling 

deadline for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Mendoza v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 

(en banc). Having reviewed the briefs and the record 

before us, we conclude that the MSPB abused its discretion in dismissing Mr. Schnell’s refiled appeals as untimely. On remand, the MSPB must consider Mr. Schnell’s 

appeals on the merits. Accordingly, the Final Order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board is

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 16-2496 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2017
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GARY S. SCHNELL,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2496

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. CH-0752-13-0056-I-3, CH-1221-12-0770-W3.

______________________ 

MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Having reviewed the record evidence, and given the 

significant length of the delay, I cannot conclude the 

MSPB abused its discretion and would affirm the MSPB’s 

denial of Mr. Schnell’s petition as untimely refiled without good cause.

Case: 16-2496 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2017