Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01904/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01904-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent
Ronald Keith Watkins
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RONALD KEITH WATKINS SR.,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2024-1904

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0841-24-0501-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 6, 2024

______________________ 

RONALD KEITH WATKINS, Silver Spring, MD, pro se. 

 ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024
2 WATKINS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Ronald Keith Watkins, Sr. has appealed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final decision dismissing 

his appeal as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Watkins v. OPM, No. DC-0841-24-0501-I-1, 2024 WL 3077398 

(M.S.P.B. May 31, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Watkins held a series of employment positions 

with the government of the District of Columbia (“D.C.”)

beginning in 1981. Mr. Watkins’s final position was with 

the D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) from September 1986 until his termination in February 2003. After his 

termination, Mr. Watkins brought suit in the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia (“Superior Court”) 

against DOC alleging that DOC terminated him in retaliation for whistleblowing. Decision, 2024 WL 3077398. On 

March 27, 2008, the D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court granting

Mr. Watkins relief, including front pay and back pay in lieu 

of reinstatement. See Watkins v. District of Columbia, 

944 A.2d 1077, 1085 (D.C. 2008).

Between 2013 and 2014, Mr. Watkins submitted retirement applications with the DOC and the D.C. Department 

of Human Resources. The applications were denied, and 

Mr. Watkins filed suit in the Superior Court challenging

those denials. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint on the grounds 

that Mr. Watkins’s retirement was governed by the federal 

Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”).

Mr. Watkins then applied for retirement under the 

CSRS. On February 8, 2016, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued a final decision denying his application on the grounds that Mr. Watkins did not have the 

requisite creditable service to be eligible for an immediate 

retirement annuity. Mr. Watkins filed an MSPB appeal 

Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2024
WATKINS v. OPM 3

challenging OPM’s final decision, and the MSPB Administrative Judge (“AJ”) affirmed OPM’s decision. Mr. Watkins 

filed a Petition for Review, and the MSPB issued a final 

order affirming the AJ’s initial decision. Mr. Watkins appealed the MSPB’s decision to this court, and we affirmed 

the MSPB’s decision on September 14, 2023. See Watkins 

v. OPM, No. 2022-2085, 2023 WL 5970785 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 14, 2023).

On April 17, 2024, OPM sent Mr. Watkins a letter notifying him that he had fully adjudicated his application 

before the MSPB as of September 14, 2023, and had exhausted his administrative rights on the matter. Mr. Watkins then filed another appeal to the MSPB regarding this 

letter. On May 6, 2024, the AJ issued an Acknowledgment 

Order and an “Order to Show Cause—Jurisdiction” informing Mr. Watkins that his appeal appeared barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel given his prior appeals. 

Mr. Watkins filed five responses to the order, and the AJ

determined that Mr. Watkins’s appeal was barred by res 

judicata and dismissed the appeal. The decision became 

final on July 5, 2024. Decision, 2024 WL 3077398.

Mr. Watkins timely appealed, and this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

In review of MSPB final decisions, we must affirm the 

decision unless “agency action, findings, or conclusions 

[are] found to be—(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). “The petitioner 

bears the burden of establishing error in the [MSPB]’s decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 

1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

“Whether, based on the facts of the case, a claim is 

barred by res judicata is a question of law which we review 

Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2024
4 WATKINS v. OPM

de novo.” Faust v. United States, 101 F.3d 675, 677 

(Fed. Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). 

“Under the doctrine of res judicata . . . , [a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or 

their privies from relitigating issues that were or could 

have been raised in that action.” Ammex, Inc. v. 

United States, 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(cleaned up). Accordingly, res judicata applies when it is

proven that “(1) the parties are identical or in privity; 

(2) the first suit proceeded to a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the second claim is based on the same set of 

transactional facts as the first.” Id.

We agree with the MSPB that Mr. Watkins’s present 

appeal is barred by res judicata. First, the parties are identical, as Mr. Watkins has previously brought suit against 

OPM. Second, our September 14, 2023 decision affirming 

the MSPB was a final judgment on the merits of Mr. Watkins’s appeal. Third, this second appeal is based on the 

same set of transactional facts as the first—here, Mr. Watkins is alleging (again) entitlement to back pay and a retirement annuity under the CSRS based on his federal 

employment from 1981 to 2003. Despite Mr. Watkins’s request that the MSPB review his appeal to consider new evidence and correct alleged legal errors, res judicata bars 

relitigation of his claim. We therefore affirm the MSPB’s 

decision dismissing Mr. Watkins’s appeal as barred by res 

judicata.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Watkins’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2024