UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

BENJAMIN CUNNINGHAM,

Appellant,

v.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL CO UNSEL,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER NY

- 3443

- 18

- 0201

- I

- 1

DATE: November 2, 2022



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Benjamin Cunningham , Bronx, New York, pro se. Amy Beckett
, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of materia l fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required t o follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).2

interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decisio n were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not a vailable when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115 ). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly
MODIFIED to clarify that the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation
that the Board has jurisdiction over his appeal, we AFFIRM the initial decision. ¶2 On review, the appellant repeats his allegations that the agency refused to
release its administrative dec ision regarding a fraud complaint that he had filed against a Federal judge and banned him from the building. Petition for Review (PFR) File
, Tab 1 at 4

- 25. 2 His petition for review and reply to the agency’s response largely duplicate documents already i n the record. PFR File
, Tab 1

at 4

- 25, Tab 4 at 2

- 26; Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tabs 1, 4

- 5. He does not allege
that he is a current or former Federal employee or applicant for employment, or that he was subjected to an appealable acti on under 5 U.S.C. § 7512 . PFR F ile,
Tab 1 at 4

- 19 , Tab 4 at 2

- 13 . The appellant does not repeat his request for a hearing or argue that the administrative judge erred in not granting him a hearing

. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4

- 19, Tab 4 at 2

- 13.

2 After he filed his petition for review and reply to the agency’s response, the appellant attempted to submit three additional pleadings. PFR File, Tabs 5

- 7 . Pleadings allowed on review include a pet ition for review, a cross petition for review, a response to a petition for review, a response to a cross petition for review, and a reply to a response to a petition for review. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114 (a). Because the appellant failed to file a motion with and obtain leave from the Clerk of the Board prior to filing his additional pleadings, they were rejected and returned to him without consideration. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114 (a)(5); PFR File, Tabs 5

- 7.3

¶3 Although an appellant bears the burden of proving by preponderant
evidence 3 that his appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction, he is entitled to a jurisdictional hearing if he presents nonfrivolous allegations 4 of Board jurisdict ion. See Ferdon v. U.S. Postal Service
, 60 M.S.P.R. 325 , 329 (1994);
5 C.F.R. § 1201.56 (b)(2)(i)(A). The administrative judge erred in applying a preponderant evidence standard, rather than nonfrivolous allegation standard, and finding that the appellant was not entitled to a hearing because he had not
established that the Board had jurisdict ion over his appeal by preponderant
evidence . IAF, Tab 11 , Initial Decision at 2, 4. However, having reviewed the record, we find that the appellant has not presented nonfrivolous allegations of Board jurisdiction . PFR File, Tab 1 at 4

- 19, Tab 4 at 2

- 13; IAF, Tabs 1, 4

- 5

. Therefore, we find no material error in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without holding a hearing. 5

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6 The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constit utes the Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113

. You may obtain
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7 703 (a)(1). By statute, the nature of

3 A preponderance of the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4 (q).

4 A nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion that, if proven, could establish the matter at issue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4 (s).

5 T h e appellant filed three additional appeals, all of which were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Cunningham v. Office of Special Counsel
, MSPB Docket No. NY

- 3443

- 17

- 0015

- I

- 1, Initial Decision (Nov. 18, 2016); Cunningham v. Office of Special Counsel , MSPB Docket No. NY

- 3443

- 18

- 0055

- I

- 1, Initial Decision ( Feb. 27, 2018 ); Cunningham v. Administrative Conference of the United States , MSPB Docket No. NY

- 3443

- 18

- 0200

- I

- 1, Initial Decision (Sept. 24, 2018). The appellant’s petitions for review of those three in itial decisions will be resolved separately.

6 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.4

your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b). Although we offer the foll owing summary of available appeal rights, the Meri t Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation an d the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applic able time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a parti cular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
sho uld contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A). If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following ad dress: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular5

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) J udicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful d iscrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision

— including a disposition of your discrimination
claims

— by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board
, 582 U.S.

____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar da ys after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court

- appointed lawyer and

to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a

. Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

.6

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues

. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). You must file any such request with the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision

. 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days a fter your representative receives
this decision. If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is: Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 2 0013 If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washingto n, D.C. 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the B oard’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of7

competent jurisdiction. 7 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B). If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

7 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeal s of competent jurisdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115

- 195, 132 Stat. 1510.8

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. /s/ for Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board