Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04071/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04071-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Royal E. Glaude
Plaintiff
Postmaster General
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROYAL E. GLAUDE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

POSTMASTER GENERAL, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04071-MEJ 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. No. 12 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Royal Glaude brings this action against Defendant Postmaster General for 

employment discrimination relating to his 1979 termination from a position with the United States 

Postal Service (the “USPS”). Plaintiff has brought previous suits premised on alleged wrongful 

conduct relating to this termination, all of which have been dismissed by this Court.1 In the 

present case, Plaintiff seeks review of the July 9, 2014 final order of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (the “MSPB”), which dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. Compl., Ex. 1, 

Dkt. No. 1. 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed December 26, 2014. 

Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition. Dkt. No. 18. The Court finds this matter suitable 

for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the February 12, 2015 hearing. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, 

and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for the reasons set forth 

below. 

 

1 See Glaude v. United States Postal Service, C-86-0055 WWS; Glaude v. United States Post 

Office Regional Postmaster General, C-87-0270 WWS; Glaude v. Regional Postmaster General, 

et al., C-87-1524 DLJ; Glaude v. Postmaster General, 07-mc-80054 MJJ. 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

II. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff was employed by the USPS until 1979, when his employment was terminated. 

Compl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1 at 2, Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff has repeatedly brought lawsuits related to his 

termination, including in 1986, 1987, and 2007, all of which have been dismissed. Order Denying 

Leave to File Complaint, Glaude v. Postmaster General, 07-mc-80054 MJJ, Dkt. No. 1. At some 

point, Plaintiff was designated a “vexatious litigant” and denied leave to file a complaint in 2007. 

Id. Plaintiff also initiated at least one prior administrative complaint, which was dismissed by the 

MSPB in 2006. Compl., Ex. 1 at 4. 

Plaintiff initiated the current round of litigation on or about March 19, 2012, when he filed 

a complaint with the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (“OFCCP”). Compl., Ex. 12. Plaintiff’s administrative complaint appears to allege that 

it was improper to: (1) deny Plaintiff employment-related benefits in connection with his 1979 

termination; (2) dismiss the lawsuit Plaintiff brought in 1986 related to the same; and (3) designate 

Plaintiff a “vexatious litigant” in connection with past proceedings. Id. Plaintiff alleges that on 

April 13, 2012, the OFCCP denied his complaint on the grounds that the “postal service is a 

private employer.” Compl. ¶ 9. 

On May 16, 2013, Plaintiff initiated proceedings with the MSPB challenging the denial of 

his claim by the OFCCP and further alleging a violation of the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 3330a-3330b. The VEOA provides certain 

federal employees and applicants with a means of redress in the event that a federal executive 

agency violates an employee’s or applicant’s veterans preference rights. Before individuals can 

file VEOA appeals with the MSPB, they must first file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. 5 

U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A, B). 

On July 25, 2013, the MSPB made its initial decision and dismissed Plaintiff’s VEOA 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff: (1) had “failed to make nonfrivolous 

allegations of any agency action or omission on or after the October 30, 1998 enactment date of 

VEOA that violated his veteran’s preference rights”; and (2) had failed to exhaust his remedy with 

the Department of Labor. Compl., Ex. 1 at 2. The MSPB further found that to the extent Plaintiff 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

was raising claims in connection with his 1979 termination, those claims had already been 

“addressed and resolved in his prior MSPB appeal in 2006” and were therefore “barred by 

collateral estoppel.” Id. Plaintiff filed a petition for review of the initial decision, and on July 9, 

2014, the MSPB issued its final order, affirming the initial decision dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction, finding that “the administrative judge correctly dismissed the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.” Id. at 5. 

On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action, seeking review of the MSPB’s July 9, 

2014 final order. Defendant filed the present Motion on December 26, 2014. Defendant seeks 

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing 

that: (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision of the MSPB dismissing Plaintiff’s 

administrative claim on jurisdictional grounds; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are time barred and he failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to plead any claim that is not 

the subject of prior dismissals. Because the Court finds Defendant’s jurisdictional argument 

dispositive, it turns to it first. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citation omitted). Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 

F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the attack is facial, the court determines whether the 

allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction, 

accepting all material allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in favor of the party 

asserting jurisdiction. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). Where the attack is factual, 

however, “the court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Safe Air for 

Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. In resolving a factual dispute as to the existence of subject matter 

jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the complaint without converting a 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id.; McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 

560 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a court “may review any evidence, such as affidavits and 

testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction”). 

Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 

12(b)(1), the opposing party bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 

511 U.S. at 377; Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because only the Federal 

Circuit has jurisdiction to review the July 9, 2014 final order of the MSPB. Mot. at 5-6. Under 

the VEOA, individuals who believe that an agency violated their rights under any statute or 

regulation relating to veteran’s preference may file a complaint seeking relief from the Secretary 

of Labor. 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A)-(B); see also Dean v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 566 Fed. App’x. 

944, 946 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “If the Secretary of Labor is unable to resolve [the] complaint . . ., the 

complainant may elect to appeal the alleged violation to the Merit Systems Protection Board.” 

5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1). To establish MSPB jurisdiction over a VEOA appeal, a claimant must 

show that he exhausted his remedy with the Department of Labor. Dean, 566 F. App’x at 946 

(citing Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The appellant 

must make that showing by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). 

Review of an MSPB decision is available either in (1) the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit or (2) federal district court. Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596, 600-01 

(2012). All jurisdictional dismissals, however, must be appealed to the Federal Circuit. Conforto 

v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where “an employee elects to 

proceed by appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board but the Board concludes it does not 

have jurisdiction over the employee’s appeal,” then “any appeal from that decision is to [the 

Federal Circuit].” Id. at 1120-21. Thus, the Federal Circuit has “jurisdiction to review [an MSPB] 

determination that an employee’s case is not appealable to the [MSPB], regardless of whether the 

employee has sought to raise claims of agency discrimination.” Id. at 1118. 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Here, because Plaintiff seeks review of the MSPB’s July 9, 2014 final order, which 

affirmed the dismissal of his administrative claim for lack of jurisdiction, any review must be 

brought before the Federal Circuit. Plaintiff’s own filings establish that he was on notice 

regarding where to appeal the MSPB decision. The final order instructed Plaintiff how to appeal: 

“You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit.” Compl., Ex. 1 at 5. The final order also told Plaintiff when to appeal to 

the Federal Circuit: “no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this order.” Id. Thus, because 

this Court is not the appropriate forum to challenge the MSPB’s decision, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

must be dismissed. See, e.g., Moore v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 10 Fed. App’x 902, 904 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (“A petitioner who ignores an order of the Administrative Judge does so at his or her peril. 

Litigants before the Board . . . are obligated to respect the Board, its procedures, including 

deadlines, and the orders of the Board’s judges.”). 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2015

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROYAL E. GLAUDE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

POSTMASTER GENERAL, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04071-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on 1/8/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Royal E. Glaude 

8096 Juniper Ave 

Newark, CA 94560 

Dated: 1/8/2015 

Richard W. Wieking 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

Case 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ Document 18 Filed 01/08/15 Page 6 of 6