Court Opinion

ID: 9965055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:00:46.568398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:40.988386
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DELON JOHNS,                                    DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                  SF-315H-18-0043-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: April 30, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Steven E. Brown , Esquire, Westlake Village, California, for the appellant.

      Chung H. Han , Esquire, Los Angeles, California, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his termination appeal as moot. For the reasons set forth below, the
appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 to 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

                                BACKGROUND
      The appellant filed this appeal of the agency’s decision to terminate him
from his Police Officer position. Johns v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB
Docket No. SF-315H-18-0043-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0043 IAF), Tab 1. The
agency submitted evidence that it had rescinded the termination, restored the
appellant to duty, and paid him back pay and benefits. 0043 IAF, Tab 12 at 7,
Tab 17 at 6-7, Tab 20 at 7-8. The appellant, through counsel, indicated that he
did not oppose the dismissal of the appeal as moot. 0043 IAF, Tab 22 at 4. On
February 20, 2018, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing
the appeal as moot. 0043 IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision (ID) at 1. Therein, the
administrative judge informed the appellant that the initial decision would
become final on March 27, 2018, if neither party filed a petition for review. ID
at 3. No timely petition for review was filed.
      Approximately 2 years and 8 months later, on November 25, 2020, the
appellant filed a new appeal challenging various matters including, among other
things, his uniform allowance, denial of overtime, the timing of step increases,
and issues with his accrual of leave. Johns v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
MSPB Docket No. SF-3443-21-0104-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0104 IAF), Tab 2
at 7, Tab 12 at 3, Tab 13 at 3-4. The administrative judge dismissed that appeal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellant filed a petition for
review. While that matter was pending on review, the appellant clarified that he
had intended some of his arguments to be a challenge to the February 20, 2018
initial decision dismissing this termination appeal as moot. Johns v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-3443-21-0104-I-1, Petition for Review
(0104 PFR) File, Tabs 5-6.     Thus, some of his pleadings were docketed as a
petition for review in this termination appeal. Johns v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, MSPB Docket No. SF-315H-18-0043-I-1, Petition for Review (0043 PFR)
File, Tabs 1-4. The Clerk’s Office notified the appellant of the issue regarding
                                                                                      3

the timeliness of his petition for review, but the appellant has not responded to
that notice. 0043 PFR File, Tab 4.

                 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      A petition for review generally must be filed within 35 days after the date
of the issuance of the initial decision, or if the party filing the petition shows that
the initial decision was received more than 5 days after it was issued, within
30 days after the party received the initial decision. Palermo v. Department of
the Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 3 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial
decision was issued on February 20, 2018, and correctly informed the appellant
that the deadline to file a petition for review was March 27, 2018. ID at 3. The
appellant did not file his petition for review until November 25, 2020,
approximately 2 years and 8 months after the filing deadline. 0043 PFR File,
Tabs 1, 4. Accordingly, his petition for review is untimely filed.
      The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing.         Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R.
694, ¶ 4; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). The party who submits an untimely petition for
review has the burden of establishing good cause for the untimely filing by
showing that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular
circumstances of the case.      Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4.         To determine
whether a party has shown good cause, the Board will consider the length of the
delay, the reasonableness of his excuse and the party’s showing of due diligence,
whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence of the
existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to comply
with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly
shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his petition. Id.
      The Office of the Clerk of the Board notified the appellant that his petition
for review appeared untimely filed and directed the appellant to submit a motion
asking the Board to accept his petition for review as timely filed or to waive the
                                                                                     4

time limit for good cause, accompanied by a statement signed under penalty of
perjury or an affidavit showing either that his petition was timely filed or that
there is good cause for the late filing.     0043 PFR File, Tab 4 at 1-2.         The
appellant did not submit a motion or signed statement in response to that notice.
Nevertheless, his petition for review and supplements contain attestations and
declarations under the penalty of perjury that his assertions therein are from his
personal knowledge and are true and correct. 0043 PFR File, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 2
at 3, Tab 3 at 3. Thus, we have considered those pleadings to the extent they
contain assertions related to the issues of timeliness and whether good cause
exists to waive the filing time limit.    Cf. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g) (requiring a
motion to waive the petition for review filing time limit to be accompanied by an
affidavit or sworn statement under the penalty of perjury).
      Despite the appellant’s pro se status, we find that the delay of
approximately 2 years and 8 months in filing his petition is lengthy. 2           See
Wirzberger v. Department of the Treasury, 101 M.S.P.R. 448, ¶ 8 (2006) (noting
that a 1-year delay in filing a petition for review was significant, even when
considering an appellant’s pro se status).         The appellant alleges that the
underlying termination appeal is not moot because he did not receive the correct
back pay resulting from the agency’s rescission of the removal action, including
the correct pay step, uniform allowance, and annual and sick leave. 0043 PFR
File, Tab 1 at 7, Tab 2 at 3, Tab 3 at 3. In a pleading dated December 30, 2020,
the appellant asserts that he did not learn of this error until “a few months ago,”
which prompted his untimely filed petition for review. 0043 PFR File, Tab 2 at 3.
The appellant’s claim that he did not realize that he had grounds for a petition for
review does not establish good cause for the untimely filing of his petition. See
Damaso v. Office of Personnel Management, 86 M.S.P.R. 371, ¶ 5 (2000).
Similarly, the discovery of, or the decision to pursue, a new legal argument after

2
 Although the appellant was represented before the administrative judge, he appears to
be proceeding pro se on review. 0043 PFR File, Tab 2 at 1, Tab 3 at 1.
                                                                                       5

the period for filing a petition for review has expired does not constitute good
cause for a delayed filing. Id. When the initial decision was issued, the appellant
was represented by counsel, who asserted on the appellant’s behalf at that time
that the appellant “no longer opposes the dismissal of this appeal as moot.”
0043 IAF, Tab 22 at 4. That was the time for the appellant to confirm that he had
received all of the relief to which he would have been entitled had he prevailed in
this appeal. We see no indication from his submissions that he could not have
discovered the alleged discrepancies in his pay, uniform allowance, or leave at
that time. He has not alleged or shown that the agency engaged in any fraud,
misrepresentation, or deception that impeded any effort by him or his counsel to
confirm those matters. Under these circumstances, we find that he has failed to
demonstrate good cause for waiving the time limit. 3
      The appellant’s remaining arguments involve the merits of the mootness
issue. E.g., 0043 PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-15. These arguments do not concern the
timeliness of his petition for review, and we therefore decline to consider them. 4
See Brame v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 98 M.S.P.R. 224, ¶ 5 (2005).
      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness

3
  To the extent that the appellant has attempted to characterize his petition as seeking
agency compliance with the administrative judge’s order resolving this termination
appeal, we find no basis for considering it as such. The administrative judge dismissed
the appeal as moot, and the initial decision did not order the agency to provide any
relief to the appellant. ID at 3. Thus, there is no basis for considering this as an
enforcement matter. 5 C.F.R. part 1201, subpart F.
4
  As discussed, the appellant filed a separate appeal challenging various alleged actions
including, among other things, the agency’s alleged failure to pay him at the correct
step level and correctly pay his uniform allowance.           0104 IAF, Tab 2. The
administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing that appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, and the appellant filed a petition for review. 0104 IAF, Tab 15, Initial
Decision (Jan. 14, 2021); 0104 PFR File, Tab 1. The Board will address that petition
for review in a separate order in Johns v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket
No. SF-3443-21-0104-I-1.
                                                                                          6

of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
Board regarding the mootness issue.

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of 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 following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and 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 applicable 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 particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should 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 address:

5
  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.
                                                                                    7

                             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.
      (2) Judicial   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 discrimination. 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. 420 (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 days 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
                                                                                  8

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 .
      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 after 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. 20013

      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
                              Washington, 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 Board’s
                                                                                       9

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 of
competent jurisdiction. 6   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.

6
   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 appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       10

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.