Case Name: Elmer E. CAMPBELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and United States Postal Service, Intervenor
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 583 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 2013-3166
Parties: Elmer E. CAMPBELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and United States Postal Service, Intervenor.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Elmer E. CAMPBELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and United States Postal Service, Intervenor.
No. 2013-3166.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2014.
Elmer E. Campbell, Jr., Vallejo, CA, pro se.
Lindsey Schreckengost, Esq., Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Nicholas Jabbour, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Elmer E. Campbell has taken an appeal from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board"). Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Appeal No. 13-3166 (Oct. 9, 2013), ECF No. 12. Mr. Campbell's brief states that his union "filed a grievance on the identical issues raised before the MSPB on November 12, 2009," and that "USPS settled these issues, and issued a Regular Regional Pre[A]rbitration Settlement with back pay for the period November 12, 2009 to March 2, 2012." Pet'r Br. at 2.
The Board in its brief states that this settlement "may provide full relief to Mr. Campbell as it relates to this matter[.]" Resp't Br. at 10 n. 2. The United States Postal Service ("USPS"), as Intervenor, provides a copy of the settlement agreement.
No party has moved for or otherwise requested, dismissal of this appeal. However, "A case becomes moot — and therefore no longer a "Case or Controversy" for purposes of Article III — when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 721, 726-27, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (citations omitted).
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
Mr. Campbell is directed to show cause, within 14 days of the date of receipt of this order, why this petition should not be dismissed as moot. The Board and USPS are also directed to respond within that time.