Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03135/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph P. Carson
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Office of Special Counsel
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSEPH P. CARSON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3135, 2015-3211

______________________ 

Petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. AT-1221-14-0620-W-1, AT-1221-15-0092-W1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 17, 2017

______________________ 

JOSEPH P. CARSON, Knoxville, TN, pro se after argument. LORING EDWIN JUSTICE, Loring Justice, PLLC, 

Knoxville, TN, argued for petitioner. Also formerly represented by BRIAN CHADWICK RICKMAN. 

JEFFREY GAUGER, Office of the General Counsel, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

Case: 15-3135 Document: 84-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/17/2017
2 CARSON v. MSPB

ZENA DENISE CRENSHAW-LOGAL, Crown Point, IN, pro 

se, as amicus curiae.

ANDREW DUDLEY JACKSON, Crown Point, IN, pro se, as 

amicus curiae.

BRENDA MCCRACKEN, Joliet, IL, pro se, as amicus curiae.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Joseph P. Carson seeks review of the March 25, 2015 

and August 17, 2015 decisions of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing his whistleblower claims against the Office of Special Counsel 

(“OSC”) for lack of jurisdiction and adjudicatory efficiency, 

respectively. Carson v. Office of Special Counsel, 2015 

WL 1353650 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 25, 2015); Carson v. Office of 

Special Counsel, 2015 WL 4884874 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 17, 

2015). 

In the first case, the Board determined that Carson’s 

allegations against the OSC—in brief, that the OSC failed 

to investigate or resolve his other whistleblower allegations against his employer, the Department of Energy—

did not themselves describe a “personnel action” within 

the meaning of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Carson, 2015 WL 1353650, at ¶¶ 11–12 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A) (2012)). Accordingly, the 

Board dismissed Carson’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. 

Id. at ¶ 1. Carson timely appealed that decision to this 

court. In the second case, the Board determined that a 

subsequent claim filed by Carson essentially “raise[d] the 

same claims” and, because the first case was still pending 

on appeal and not yet final, “dismiss[ed] . . . based upon 

adjudicatory efficiency.” Carson, 2015 WL 4884874, at 

Case: 15-3135 Document: 84-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/17/2017
CARSON v. MSPB 3

¶ 12 (citing Bean v. U.S. Postal Serv., 120 M.S.P.R. 447 

(2013); Zgonc v. Dep’t of Def., 103 M.S.P.R. 666 (2006)). 

Carson timely appealed that decision as well, and the two 

cases were consolidated before this court.

After full review of the record, oral argument, and 

Carson’s proposed corrections to statements made at oral 

argument, we find no error in the Board’s analysis. 

Specifically, we find that Carson failed to allege that a 

cognizable personnel action was taken against him and 

that, in the absence of such allegations, the Board lacked 

jurisdiction to review Carson’s claims. We also find that 

the Board did not err in dismissing Carson’s duplicate 

claim on administrative efficiency grounds. And, we do 

not find Carson’s proposed corrections to the record material to these findings. Accordingly, the Board’s decisions 

are affirmed and Carson’s motion to correct is denied as 

moot.1

AFFIRMED

 

1 To the extent that Carson, in that same motion, 

requests that we administer “disciplinary action” to one or 

more of the attorneys involved in this appeal, that request 

is denied. Such complaints should be addressed, instead, 

to the relevant disciplinary tribunals, not to this court.

Case: 15-3135 Document: 84-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/17/2017