Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-13-03137/USCOURTS-ca13-13-03137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of the Army
Respondent
Paula Jo Hearn
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Intervenor

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PAULA JO HEARN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2013-3137

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0731-12-0120-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 4, 2016

______________________ 

ANDREW P. FLEMING, Chiacchia & Fleming, LLP, 

Hamburg, NY, for petitioner. Also represented by 

CHRISTEN ARCHER PIERROT, East Aurora, NY. 

ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

Case: 13-3137 Document: 111-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2016
2 HEARN v. ARMY

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

MILLER, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY.

JEFFREY GAUGER, Office of the General Counsel, Merit

Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paula Jo Hearn petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming the 

Department of the Army’s (“Army”) removal of Ms. Hearn 

from her position as a program analyst based on a suitability determination. Hearn v. Dep’t of the Army, 119 

M.S.P.R. 412 (M.S.P.B. 2013). Because Ms. Hearn failed 

to file a timely petition for review to this court, we must 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

I 

In the summer of 2011, the Army Corps of Engineers 

hired Ms. Hearn, subject to a background investigation,

as a program analyst. After her interview for this position, Ms. Hearn submitted background paperwork noting 

that she had pled guilty to a misdemeanor of “exceed[ing] 

authorized access of computer,” but she did not describe 

the circumstances of this guilty plea. During the background investigation, OPM discovered that, during Ms. 

Hearn’s prior employment at a Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”) detention center, Ms. Hearn had covertly monitored the telephone calls of her superiors and 

therein improperly learned sensitive information related 

to law enforcement and other private information about 

fellow employees. Ms. Hearn was arrested for these 

Case: 13-3137 Document: 111-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/04/2016
HEARN v. ARMY 3

actions, and pled guilty to the misdemeanor of “Fraud and 

Related Activity in Connection with Computers.” 

Based on the information uncovered in the background investigation, the Army removed Ms. Hearn from 

her position for suitability reasons. On April 26, 2013, 

the Board sustained Ms. Hearn’s removal. Hearn, 119 

M.S.P.R. at 412. Ms. Hearn seeks review of the Board’s

decision. She filed her petition for review at this court on 

June 26, 2013. 

II

Before addressing the merits, an appeals court must 

ensure that it has jurisdiction over the matters appealed. 

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 

94–95 (1998); Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 

U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (“[E]very federal appellate court has 

a special obligation to satisfy itself . . . of its own jurisdiction . . . even though the parties are prepared to concede 

it.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

On December 27, 2012, Congress limited this court’s 

review of final decisions of the Board to those petitions 

“filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the 

final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). Failure to comply with that statutory 

deadline prevents jurisdiction in this court. See Oja v. 

Dep’t of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(“Compliance with the filing deadline of 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction 

over this case.”); see also Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 

F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (stating that the filing 

deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory [and] jurisdictional”). Prior to the 2012 amendment, 

a petition for review must have been “filed within 60 days 

after the date the petitioner received notice” of the 

Board’s decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) (2011). With its 

April 26, 2013 decision pertaining to Ms. Hearn, the 

Board included a “Notice to the Appellant Regarding Your 

Case: 13-3137 Document: 111-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/04/2016
4 HEARN v. ARMY

Further Review Rights,” stating specifically that the 

Federal Circuit “must receive your request for review no 

later than 60 calendar days after the date of this order.” 

J.A. 1199. 

The Army and the Board, as intervenor, contend that 

Ms. Hearn failed to comply with the 60-day statutory time 

limit for filing her petition for review, given that her 

petition was filed with this court 61 days after the Board 

issued its opinion.1 To be timely filed, a petition for 

review must be received by the Clerk of the Court on or 

before the date the petition is due. Fed. R. App. P. 

25(a)(2)(A). Under § 7703(b)(1), Ms. Hearn’s petition was 

due on June 25, 2013. We therefore agree that Ms. Hearn 

failed to timely file her petition. 

Ms. Hearn argues that her petition was timely because, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(c), 

we must extend her time to file her petition for review by 

three days. We disagree; this court has previously rejected the argument that Rule 26(c) extends the date to file a 

petition for review. See, e.g., Willingham v. Dep’t of the 

Navy, 526 F. App’x 975, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure also prohibit this court from 

extending the deadline for filing a petition for review from 

an administrative agency, except where authorized by 

law. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2). Ms. Hearn has offered no 

citation to any authority that contradicts this interpretation. 

In the alternative, Ms. Hearn contends that she and 

her counsel did not, in fact, receive the Board’s decision on 

 

1 Before the parties briefed the merits of this petition, the Army filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of 

jurisdiction. We denied the motion and ordered the 

parties to address jurisdictional arguments in the merits 

briefing.

Case: 13-3137 Document: 111-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/04/2016
HEARN v. ARMY 5

April 26, 2013. Ms. Hearn asserts that we should therefore calculate the permissible time for the filing of her 

petition for review based on when she actually received 

the Board’s decision. This argument also fails. Under the 

Board’s regulations, an e-filer is deemed to have received 

case documents on the date of electronic submission. 5 

C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). The Board’s filing of its decision 

on April 26, 2013 started the 60-day period under § 

7703(b)(1)(A); this period ended on June 25, 2013. Ms. 

Hearn’s request that we consider the date on which she 

claims actual receipt of the Board’s decision in our analysis amounts to a request for equitable tolling. Our precedent is clear that the deadline to petition for review of a 

board decision is not subject to equitable tolling. See, e.g., 

Oja, 405 F.3d at 1358–60. The time limit is statutory and 

jurisdictional; it cannot be waived. See id. 

We find Ms. Hearn’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Based on the record before us, it is clear that 

Ms. Hearn had notice of the new requirements for filing a 

petition for review under § 7703(b)(1) at the time the 

Board’s decision was issued. Because Ms. Hearn’s petition was filed after the 60–day period provided by statute, 

this court cannot exercise jurisdiction to address the 

merits of her case. See, e.g., Willingham, 526 F. App’x. at

977–78; Howard v. MSPB, 392 F. App’x 857 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a petition filed 

three days late by an e-filer); see also Fed. R. App. P. 

25(a)(2)(A) (noting that “filing is not timely unless the 

clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing”). 

DISMISSED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 13-3137 Document: 111-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/04/2016