Court Opinion

ID: 9960968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 17:01:04.534762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:06.262649
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GREGORY TURNER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
            Appellant,                          AT-0353-21-0103-I-1

             v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 16, 2024
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Gregory Turner , Memphis, Tennessee, pro se.

      Cynthia R. Allen , Esquire, Memphis, Tennessee, 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 appeal. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the
following circumstances:      the initial decision contains erroneous findings of
material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 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
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

decision 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 available 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
VACATE the application of collateral estoppel as a basis for dismissing this
appeal, we AFFIRM the initial decision’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
      Over the years, the appellant has filed a number of Board appeals. Many
were restoration appeals relating to a compensable injury. E.g., Turner v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-10-0960-I-1; Turner v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-14-0838-I-1. Some others were challenges
under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. E.g., Turner v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-3330-17-0026-I-1; Turner v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0330-20-0125-I-1.
      In the appeal currently before the Board, the appellant’s initial pleading
simply alleged, “refusal to take action non communication.”         Turner v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-21-0103-I-1 (0103 appeal), Initial
Appeal File (0103 IAF), Tab 1 at 3. The administrative judge issued a show
cause order. 0103 IAF, Tab 4. Among other things, he explained that it was
unclear what the appellant was challenging, whether it involved matters already
litigated in one of the appellant’s prior Board appeals, and whether it fell within
the Board’s limited jurisdiction. Id. at 2.
      As the appellant responded to the administrative judge’s show cause order,
the appellant indicated that he spoke with agency officials in December 2020
about his continued status, off-duty. 0103 IAF, Tab 5 at 4. He alleged that his
situation gave rise to multiple potential claims, such as a constructive suspension.
                                                                                    3

Id. at 4-7. With this pleading, the appellant attached paystubs showing that he
was on leave without pay. Id. at 9-11.
      The agency also responded to the show cause order, arguing that the instant
appeal should be dismissed. 0103 IAF, Tab 6. Among other things, the agency
explained that the appellant had been off work since 2014 due to a compensable
injury.   Id. at 4-5.   The agency also described the burden for establishing
jurisdiction over a restoration appeal and argued that the appellant had not met
that burden in this appeal. Id. at 6-8.
      The administrative judge dismissed the instant appeal based on collateral
estoppel or, in the alternative, lack of jurisdiction.    0103 IAF, Tab 7, Initial
Decision (0103 ID) (referencing Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
No. AT-0353-20-0424-I-1 (0424 appeal)). The appellant has filed a petition for
review. Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-21-0103-I-1,
Petition for Review (0103 PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5-7, with agency policies
pertaining to reasonable accommodation attached, id. at 8-102. The agency has
filed a response. 0103 PFR File, Tab 3.
      Again, the appellant’s initial filing in the instant appeal did not clearly
indicate what he intended to challenge.      0103 IAF, Tab 1.      As a result, the
administrative judge issued a show cause order, which resulted in the appellant
indicating that he contacted the agency in December 2020 about “how much
longer” he will “be held out of the workplace.” 0103 IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The
appellant did not allege that the agency had denied a request for restoration at that
time, but he did argue that his continued status off work amounted to a
constructive suspension, it violated his right to due process, and it constituted
harmful error. Id.
      To the extent that the appellant was attempting to present a constructive
suspension appeal stemming from the absence caused by his compensable injury,
the administrative judge was correct to note that his rights and remedies are
subsumed by the restoration appeal process. ID at 7; see, e.g., Bohannon v. U.S.
                                                                                  4

Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 629, ¶¶ 11-12 (2011); Kinglee v. U.S. Postal
Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 473, ¶¶ 16-22 (2010).       The appellant has presented no
argument to the contrary on review. 0103 PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-7.
      To the extent that the appellant was attempting to present a claim that the
agency has once again denied him restoration, the administrative judge correctly
found that he failed to meet the corresponding jurisdictional burden . ID at 3-4, 7.
In particular, the appellant failed to present nonfrivolous allegations that he
recovered sufficiently to return to duty; that the agency denied his request for
restoration; or that such a denial was arbitrary and capricious.      ID at 7; see
Cronin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2022 MSPB 13, ¶ 12 (describing these as among
the elements required for an appellant to establish jurisdiction over a restoration
appeal as a partially recovered employee). Again, the appellant has presented no
substantive argument to the contrary on review. 0103 PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-7.
      Although the appellant’s petition does not challenge the administrative
judge’s findings, it does contain an explanation for his petition for review. Id.
at 5-6. The appellant seems to assert that he believed his initial filings would
suffice for purposes of getting a hearing, where he intended to identify and
document “all the violations” by the agency. Id. at 6.
      The Board has routinely recognized that pro se filings are to be construed
liberally. E.g., Hosozawa v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 110,
¶ 7 (2010). Even so, we find no basis for reaching a conclusion different than the
administrative judge as to the appellant failing to establish jurisdiction over the
instant appeal.
      The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been
given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation.          Maddox v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Board does not have
jurisdiction over all matters involving a Federal employee that are allegedly
unfair or incorrect. Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service, 67 M.S.P.R. 573, 577 (1995).
                                                                                       5

       Here, the appellant’s instant appeal indicates that he contacted the agency
in December 2020, and he remains in an off-duty status, not being paid.
However, despite repeated notice of his jurisdictional burden for a restoration
appeal, in this appeal and in those he has filed previously, the appellant presented
nothing below or on review to meet that burden for this appeal.            He has also
failed to present any other reason why the Board would have jurisdiction in this
appeal, where he has presented little more than bare assertions that he remains off
work. For these reasons, we agree with the administrative judge’s dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction. 2

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
       The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes 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. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate

2
  As previously noted, the administrative judge also cited collateral estoppel as a basis
for dismissing the instant appeal. 0103 ID at 5-6 (referencing Turner v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-20-0424-I-1). At the time, the appellant had an
appeal pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
where it appears as if the appellant may have been attempting to challenge the decision
from the earlier appeal. Id. Because of this, and because dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction was an appropriate disposition in the instant appeal, we vacate the
administrative judge’s finding regarding collateral estoppel as a basis for dismissal. We
need not decide whether collateral estoppel applies to the circumstances at hand. See
Hooker v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 122 M.S.P.R. 551, ¶¶ 4, 12 (2015)
(modifying a dismissal based on collateral estoppel to instead dismiss based on res
judicata and, therefore, finding no reason to determine whether collateral estoppel
applies); compare Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, 119 M.S.P.R. 22, ¶ 16 (2012) (finding
that collateral estoppel did not apply where a petition for review was pending before the
Board in an initial appeal at the time of a second appeal about the same issue),
overruled on other grounds by Cronin, 2022 MSPB 13, with Cataulin v. U.S. Postal
Service, 41 M.S.P.R. 681, 683 (1989) (finding that collateral estoppel did apply to a
district court’s guilty verdict for criminal charges, despite the employee’s pending
appeal, because that appeal was not subject to de novo review).
3
  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

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:
                              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.
                                                                                    7

      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
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
                                                                                    8

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
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. 4   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
4
  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
                                                                                       9

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.

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.