Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03223/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bancie Black
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BANCIE BLACK,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3223

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0831-14-1113-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 11, 2016

______________________ 

BANCIE BLACK, Panama City, Republic of Panama, pro 

se.

 MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3223 Document: 27-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2016
2 BLACK v. OPM

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Bancie Black appeals a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”). Because the Board 

properly denied Mr. Black’s petition under the doctrines 

of res judicata and collateral estoppel, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Black received an appointment to a position in 

the Canal Zone Government by the Panama Canal Company on May 10, 1978, and his position was terminated on 

September 29, 1979. Effective October 1, 1979, the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 abolished both the Canal Zone 

Government and the Panama Canal Company, replacing 

them with the Panama Canal Commission (“Commission”). Mr. Black then received an appointment by the 

Commission on October 9, 1979, and continued to serve

until December 31, 1999. 

In 1999, Mr. Black sought a final determination by 

the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) as to 

whether he was entitled to coverage under the Civil 

Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). The Board ultimately determined Mr. Black is “excluded from CSRS 

coverage under [22 U.S.C. §] 3649 because he is not a 

citizen of the United States, his initial appointment by 

the Commission occurred after October 1, 1979, and he is 

covered by the Social Security System of Panama.” 

Jadusingh v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 91 M.S.P.R. 79, *87–

88 (2002).1 Mr. Black did not appeal this Board decision, 

and the decision became final. 

 

1 Mr. Black’s full legal name is Bancie Black 

Jadusingh. 

Case: 15-3223 Document: 27-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2016
BLACK v. OPM 3

In 2014, Mr. Black submitted to OPM a new application for an annuity under the CSRS based on his federal 

employment between 1978 and 1999. OPM denied this 

application and Mr. Black appealed to the Board. An 

administrative judge issued an order requiring Mr. Black 

to show cause why his appeal was not barred by the 

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

Mr. Black responded that he was presenting new and 

previously unavailable evidence, that his prior case was 

wrongly decided, and that his prior case differed from the 

present appeal because it involved an application for an 

immediate retirement annuity while the present case 

involves an application for a deferred annuity. The administrative judge then found Mr. Black’s claim barred by 

res judicata and collateral estoppel. Following a petition 

for review, the Board affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. 

Mr. Black timely appeals the Board’s final decision. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must affirm a final decision of the Board 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). Res judicata bars relitigation of issues 

that were, or could have been, raised in a prior action,

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980), and applies 

when: “(1) the prior decision was rendered by a forum 

with competent jurisdiction; (2) the prior decision was a 

final decision on the merits; and (3) the same cause of 

action and the same parties or their privies were involved 

in both cases,” Carson v. Dep’t of Energy, 398 F.3d 1369, 

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Collateral estoppel applies when: 

“(i) the issue previously adjudicated is identical with that 

now presented, (ii) that issue was actually litigated in the 

Case: 15-3223 Document: 27-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2016
4 BLACK v. OPM

prior case, (iii) the previous determination of that issue 

was necessary to the end-decision then made, and (iv) the 

party precluded was fully represented in the prior action.” 

Morgan v. Dep’t of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271, 1274–75 

(Fed. Cir. 2005). 

We agree with the Board that Mr. Black’s present 

claim is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

The present claim and the Board’s 2002 final decision

involved the same parties and the same cause of action—

Mr. Black’s entitlement to a retirement annuity under the 

CSRS based on his federal employment from 1978 to 

1999. Success in both applications for retirement benefits 

depended on Mr. Black demonstrating that his federal 

service from 1978 to 1999 was covered by the CSRS, and 

this issue was litigated to a final decision in 2002. Despite Mr. Black’s request that the Board reopen his appeal to consider new evidence and correct alleged legal 

errors, res judicata and collateral estoppel bar relitigation 

of his claim. Both res judicata and collateral estoppel 

apply even if new evidence exists or the aggrieved party 

believes the earlier case was wrongly denied. “[R]es 

judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the cost 

and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and . . . encourage reliance on adjudication.” 

Allen, 449 U.S. at 94. Because the Board correctly found 

that Mr. Black already brought this claim and litigated it 

to a final decision, we discern no error in the Board’s 

denial of Mr. Black’s petition under the doctrines of res 

judicata and collateral estoppel. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3223 Document: 27-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2016