Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03097/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Slocum
Petitioner
United States Postal Service
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CALVIN SLOCUM,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3097

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-07-0157-C-2.

______________________ 

Decided: November 10, 2015

______________________ 

CALVIN SLOCUM, Decatur, AL, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

ELIZABETH M HOSFORD. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3097 Document: 28-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2015
2 SLOCUM v. USPS

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Slocum appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his petition for enforcement of a June 6, 2008 order. Because the Board properly 

denied Mr. Slocum’s petition under the doctrine of res 

judicata, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The United States Postal Service employed Mr. Slocum, a preference-eligible veteran, as a Mail Handler in 

Huntsville, Alabama. In 2006, Mr. Slocum began an 

extended absence from his job for medical reasons. On 

October 4, 2006, the USPS placed Mr. Slocum on emergency placement in a non-duty, non-pay status. Then, in 

March 2007, the USPS placed Mr. Slocum on permanent 

leave without pay. He returned to work in May 2009.

While on leave, Mr. Slocum filed an appeal at the 

Board challenging his October 4, 2006 emergency placement. In a 2008 order, the Board directed the USPS to

cancel Mr. Slocum’s placement on non-duty status and to 

“restore [Mr. Slocum] effective October 4, 2006.” J.A. 69. 

The Board also ordered the USPS to issue Mr. Slocum 

back pay, including interest and benefits. And the Board 

informed Mr. Slocum that he might be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Three months later, 

Mr. Slocum, acting under the advice of counsel, signed a 

settlement agreement: Mr. Slocum “agree[d] to fully and 

finally settle all claims by Appellant of any nature against 

the United States Postal Service” in return for three 

months’ back pay and $6,800 in attorney’s fees. J.A. 71. 

After receiving a check from the USPS for three 

months’ back pay, Mr. Slocum filed his first petition for 

enforcement challenging the calculation of his pay. The 

Administrative Judge denied Mr. Slocum’s petition because the USPS had properly calculated the three months’ 

Case: 15-3097 Document: 28-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2015
SLOCUM v. USPS 3

back pay. The Board subsequently denied Mr. Slocum’s

petition for review of the AJ’s decision. 

Mr. Slocum then filed a second petition challenging 

the USPS’s compliance with the 2008 order to restore him 

effective October 4, 2006. Mr. Slocum acknowledged that 

he had received the three months’ back pay stipulated in 

the settlement agreement, but he asserted that the USPS

wrongly denied him back pay from January 21, 2007, to 

May 25, 2009 (the date he returned to employment). 

Mr. Slocum reasoned that, because the 2008 order “commanded the USPS to restore the appellant to duty effective October 4, 2006,” he was due back pay for the period 

until he returned to full employment in 2009. J.A. 98–99.

The AJ denied Mr. Slocum’s petition under the doctrine of res judicata. The AJ held that Mr. Slocum’s first 

petition to enforce the settlement agreement barred his 

second petition for enforcement of the 2008 order. The AJ

explained that the 2008 order had been “subsumed by the 

terms of the settlement agreement.” J.A. 23. Thus, when

the first petition challenged the USPS’s compliance with 

the settlement agreement, it also challenged the USPS’s

compliance with the 2008 order. As a result, the AJ held 

that Mr. Slocum’s second petition challenging the USPS’s 

compliance with the 2008 order was barred under res 

judicata. 

Mr. Slocum petitioned the Board to review the AJ’s 

dismissal. The Board affirmed, reasoning that 

Mr. Slocum “could have raised the issue of whether the 

[USPS] erred in limiting its back pay check to 3 months’ 

pay in his first petition for enforcement.” Slocum v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., No. AT-0752-07-0157-C-2, 2015 WL 110618, 

¶ 7 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 8, 2015). The Board thus issued a final 

decision dismissing Mr. Slocum’s second petition under 

the doctrine of res judicata. 

Mr. Slocum appeals the Board’s final decision. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

Case: 15-3097 Document: 28-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2015
4 SLOCUM v. USPS

DISCUSSION

We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it is 

“(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). We review the Board’s legal 

conclusion on res judicata de novo. Phillips/May Corp. v. 

United States, 524 F.3d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

“Under the doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion), ‘[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) (quoting Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie,

452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)). Here, the parties are undisputedly the same—Mr. Slocum challenged the USPS’s

acts in both the first and second petition. And the first 

petition reached a final judgment on the merits after the 

Board denied his petition for review. Accordingly, we 

need only determine whether Mr. Slocum could have 

raised the grounds for the second petition in the first.

We agree with the Board that Mr. Slocum, in his first 

petition, could have raised the issues he later presented in

his second petition. In his first petition, Mr. Slocum 

challenged the sufficiency of the USPS’s payment of back 

pay under the settlement. In his second petition, 

Mr. Slocum again challenged the sufficiency of the USPS’s 

back pay, but this time he argued that he was due back 

pay for an additional time period—January 20, 2007 to 

May 25, 2009—as well as the three months the USPS had 

already paid. So both petitions relate to whether the 

USPS paid the proper amount of back pay under the 2008 

order, and therefore both petitions relate to the same set 

of transactional facts. Because Mr. Slocum could have 

Case: 15-3097 Document: 28-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2015
SLOCUM v. USPS 5

challenged the USPS’s compliance with the 2008 order in 

his first petition, he cannot bring that same claim in a 

second petition under the doctrine of res judicata. See 

Phillips/May Corp., 524 F.3d at 1271 (“[T]he general rule 

is that claim preclusion applies when ‘the second claim is 

based on the same set of transactional facts as the first.’” 

(quoting Ammex, 334 F.3d at 1055)). We thus discern no 

error in the Board’s denial of Mr. Slocum’s second petition 

under the doctrine of res judicata. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-3097 Document: 28-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2015