Court Opinion

ID: 9373811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:33.794776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.688608
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JUAN A. DANIELS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0353-17-0310-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: March 28, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lorenzo Cobb, Sugarhill, Georgia, for the appellant.

           Erika F. Campbell-Harris, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         On May 9, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for review of the initial
     decision that dismissed his restoration appeal for lack of jurisdiction.        Initial
     Appeal File, Tab 8, Initial Decision; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. On
     January 19, 2018, the appellant, through his attorney, filed a submission stating
     that he was withdrawing his petition for review and did not wish to pursue the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     matter further because the agency had returned him to work and “back paid” him
     for the time periods at issue.     PFR File, Tab 5.     On January 26, 2018, the
     appellant’s attorney sent a letter to a settlement attorney w ith Board’s Office of
     General Counsel, stating that the appellant understood that the withdrawal of his
     petition for review was with prejudice to refiling. PFR File, Tab 6 at 1. With the
     letter, the appellant’s attorney submitted a statement signed by the agency
     representative on January 26, 2018, asserting that the agency did not object to the
     appellant’s withdrawal of the petition for review. Id. at 2.
¶2        By order dated July 23, 2018, the Clerk of the Board informed the parties
     that, pursuant to a May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, the Office of the Clerk
     of the Board had been “delegated authority to grant a petitioner’s request to
     withdraw his petition for review.” PFR File, Tab 7 at 1 n.*. The order noted the
     appellant’s January 19, 2018 submission requesting to voluntarily withdraw the
     petition for review, and his January 26, 2018 submission confirming his intent to
     withdraw the petition for review with prejudice. Id. at 1-2. Consistent with the
     May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, the Clerk directed the appellant to submit
     a brief pleading confirming that his request to withdraw his petition for review
     was voluntary and that he understood the withdrawal was with prejudice to
     refiling with the Board. Id. at 2. The appellant did not respond to the July 23,
     2018 order.
¶3        On August 28, 2018, the Clerk of the Board issued a second order, which
     noted the appellant’s failure to respond to the July 23, 2018 order and instructed
     him to file a brief pleading within 7 days of the second order confirming his
     request to withdraw. PFR File, Tab 8 at 1-2. The second order also stated that,
     “[i]f the appellant does not file a pleading confirming his intent, the Clerk of the
     Board will not act on his request to withdraw the petition for review, and the
     Board will instead issue a decision following the restoration of a Board quorum.”
     Id. at 1-2 (emphasis removed).      In addition, the Clerk ordered the agency to
                                                                                      3

     submit a brief pleading stating whether it objected to the appellant’s withdrawal
     of the petition for review. Id. at 2.
¶4         The appellant again did not respond. The agency submitted a copy of the
     agency representative’s January 26, 2018 signed statement asserting that the
     agency did not object to the appellant’s withdrawal of his petition for review.
     PFR File, Tab 9.
¶5         Thereafter, the Clerk of the Board issued an order informing the parties
     that, “[i]n light of the appellant’s failure to confirm his intent to withdraw the
     petition for review, the Office of the Clerk of the Board will take no further
     action to process the appellant’s request to withdraw the petition for review under
     the May 11, 2018 policy.” PFR File, Tab 10 at 1 (emphasis removed). The order
     further informed the parties that the appellant’s petition for review would be
     returned to the Board for consideration and that the Board would issue a decision
     on the petition for review following the restoration of a Board quorum. Id. at 1-2.
¶6         Because a Board quorum has been restored, we can issue a decision on the
     petition for review. Although the appellant did not avail himself of the option of
     having the Clerk of the Board dismiss his petition for review as withdrawn
     pursuant to the May 11, 2018 Delegation of Authority, we discern no basis not to
     give effect to the appellant’s January 19, 2018 request to withdraw the petition
     for review, signed by the appellant’s attorney, and supplemented by his attorney’s
     January 26, 2018 letter explicitly stating that the appellant understood that his
     withdrawal was with prejudice to refiling. PFR File, Tabs 5-6. Moreover, as
     noted above, the agency has submitted a statement asserting that it has no
     objection to the appellant’s request to withdraw his petition for review. PFR File,
     Tab 9. We find that withdrawal of the petition for review is appropriate under the
     circumstances.
¶7         Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review as withdrawn with
     prejudice to refiling.
                                                                                           4

¶8         The initial decision of the administrative judge is final. This is the Board’s
     final decision in this matter.      Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
     section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113).

                              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 app licable 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).

     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.
                                                                                        5

      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:
                              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. ____ , 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 days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
                                                                                  6

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.
      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
                                                                                      7

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
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

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.
                                                                             8

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      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:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.