Court Opinion

ID: 9959446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 18:00:57.179183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:33.410915
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ROBERT L. KENNEDY,                              DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        SF-3330-16-0380-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: April 10, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Robert L. Kennedy , Honolulu, Hawaii, pro se.

      Reza Behinia , 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 Veterans’ Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) appeal for failure
to prosecute, with prejudice and without holding a hearing. 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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
      Consistent with the notice provided therein, the initial decision became
final on October 27, 2016, after neither party filed a petition for review by that
date. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 3. On March 5,
2018, the appellant filed an unsworn pleading, which he styled as a request for
“Reopening An Appeal Dismissed Without Prejudice.” Petition for Review (PFR)
File, Tab 1 at 3. On review, he contends that he “was never served any notice to
attend anything else in the case,” or “anything [else] from [the Board],”
apparently because he was incarcerated in July 2016, and that he is “just now
looking into the case.” Id. He also alleges that “the VA [told him] not to worry
about anything else” because “they have favored [him].” Id.
      In an acknowledgment letter, the Clerk of the Board explained to the
appellant that his petition appeared to be untimely and that his appeal may be
dismissed on that basis if he did not submit a motion for waiver of the time limit
and a sworn statement or affidavit explaining why there is good cause for the
delay. PFR File, Tab 2 at 2-3. The Clerk also enclosed a copy of the Board’s
form “Motion to Accept Filing as Timely and/or to Ask the Board to Waive or Set
Aside the Time Limit.” Id. at 8-9. Neither party has responded to the Clerk’s
acknowledgment letter.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      The Board treats a request to reopen an initial decision that became final
when neither party petitioned for review as an untimely filed petition for review.
See Valdez v. Office of Personnel Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 88, ¶ 4 (2006).
Thus, we consider the appellant’s arguments on review insofar as they relate to
the timeliness of his petition for review.
      A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the date of issuance
of the initial decision or within 30 days after the date that the appellant received
the initial decision if he shows that he received the initial decision more than
                                                                                     3

5 days after it was issued. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The appellant has not shown
that he complied with those time limits.       Although he claims he was “never
served with anything,” PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, Board documents served
electronically on registered e-filers are deemed received on the date of electronic
submission, regardless of whether they were in fact received, Lima v. Department
of the Air Force, 101 M.S.P.R. 64, ¶ 5 (2006); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). Thus,
as a registered e-filer, the appellant is deemed to have received the initial
decision on September 22, 2016, the date the Board’s Western Regional Office
served him at his email address of record. ID at 1; IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 14.
Accordingly, his March 5, 2018 petition for review is untimely by approximately
16 months.
      The Board will excuse the untimely filing of a petition for review only
upon a showing of good cause for the delay.          5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g).       To
establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition, a party must show that
he   exercised   due   diligence   or   ordinary   prudence   under   the   particular
circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R.
180, 184 (1980). To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the
Board will consider the length of the delay; the reasonableness of his excuse and
his 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 that similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file
his petition for review. Moorman v. Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-
63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table).
      We find that the appellant has not shown good cause for the delay.
Although he is pro se, the 16-month delay is significant.             See Beverly v.
Department of Justice, 110 M.S.P.R. 27, ¶ 6 (2008) (finding the pro se appellant’s
over 2-month delay significant). He also has not explained how his incarceration
prevented him from receiving the initial decision or otherwise prosecuting his
                                                                                    4

appeal. See McCoy v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 256, ¶ 7 (2009) (finding
no good cause for the appellant’s filing delay when he failed to explain how his
incarceration prevented him from filing a petition for review or explained the
further delay in filing after he was released), aff’d, 360 F. App’x 132 (Fed. Cir.
2010); Johnson v. Department of the Navy, 73 M.S.P.R. 431, 433 (1997) (finding
that being incarcerated did not relieve the appellant of his responsibility to ensure
that the Board knew where it could reach him). Further, while an appellant’s
reliance on agency misinformation as to the filing deadline may be a basis for
excusing a filing delay, Floyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 44 M.S.P.R. 37, 40-41
(1990), the appellant’s assertion that “the VA [told him] not to worry about
anything else,” PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, is insufficient to show that the agency
misinformed him as to any matter. In any event, the initial decision correctly
apprised him of the filing deadline. ID at 3; see Beverly, 110 M.S.P.R. 27, ¶ 6.
The appellant continued to exhibit a lack of due diligence by failing to submit the
required motion and accompanying affidavit or sworn statement . See Morton v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶ 9 (2010); 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(g) (providing that late filings must be accompanied by an affidavit or
sworn statement explaining the delay).      We, therefore, dismiss the appellant’s
petition for review as untimely filed without good cause shown for the delay.
      To the extent that the appellant intended his petition for review to be a
request to reopen his VEOA appeal, we deny that request. The Board usually will
not reopen an appeal to cure the untimeliness of a petition for review. Deville v.
Government Printing Office, 93 M.S.P.R. 187, ¶ 15 (2002). Also, a request to
reopen generally must be filed within a reasonable period of time, measured in
weeks, not years. Cameron v. Department of the Navy, 112 M.S.P.R. 350, ¶ 9
(2009); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118. The appellant’s 16-month delay in making his
request was unreasonably long. See Cameron, 112 M.S.P.R. 350, ¶ 9 (denying
the appellant’s request to reopen an appeal approximately 15 months after the
initial decision became final). Absent any other basis for reopening, we decline
                                                                                         5

to exercise our discretionary authority under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118, and we deny
his request to reopen this appeal. Id.

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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:
2
  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.
                                                                                    6

                             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
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

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. 3   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.

3
   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.
                                                                        9

      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.