Court Opinion

ID: 9373089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:40.051957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.244988
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MICHAEL T. LARSEN,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-0752-16-0301-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: January 18, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Michael T. Larsen, Yucca Valley, California, pro se.

           Tracey Rockenbach, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed his removal. 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2         On September 8, 2016, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     that affirmed the agency’s removal action. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 36,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 1. He notified the appellant that the initial decision would
     become the Board’s final decision on October 13, 2016, unless a petition for
     review was filed by that date.     ID at 62.    He also informed the parties that,
     pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(h), the length of a petition for review is limited
     to 30 pages or 7500 words, whichever is less, and that a request for leave to file a
     pleading that exceeds such limitations must be received by the Clerk of the Board
     at least 3 days before the filing deadline. ID at 64.
¶3         The appellant attempted to file a 128-page petition for review on
     October 13, 2016. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1. However, because
     the petition for review was noncompliant with the Board’s 30-page length
     limitation, the Clerk of the Board rejected it and allowed the appellant to file a
     perfected petition for review by October 21, 2016. Id. The Clerk of the Board
     explained in the rejection letter that, if a petition for review was not filed by that
     date, the September 8, 2016 initial decision would remain the final decision of the
     Board. Id.
¶4         Nearly 1 month past the October 21, 2016 deadline, the appellant filed a
     perfected petition for review on November 17, 2016, along with a declaration and
     a statement addressing the untimeliness of the submission. PFR File, Tab 2. In
     an acknowledgment letter, the Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that his
     petition for review was untimely filed and that he could file a motion with the
     Board to accept his filing as timely or to waive the time limit for good cause .
     PFR File, Tab 3 at 1-2. The appellant thereafter filed a motion to accept his
     petition for review as timely filed or to waive the time limi t, and he submitted a
     new version of the petition for review, a declaration, and a copy of an email
     exchange between him and the agency representative. PFR File, Tab 4.              The
     agency filed a response arguing, in part, that the appellant failed to show good
     cause for the untimely petition for review. PFR File, Tab 5 at 5-6.
                                                                                         3

¶5         The appellant asserts in his motion and declaration that he did not receive
     the Clerk of the Board’s rejection letter until he checked the Repository at
     e-Appeal Online on November 16, 2016. PFR File, Tab 4 at 4-5, 33-34. He
     further alleges that he demonstrated due diligence by perfecting his petition for
     review within 24 hours of receiving notice of the rejection letter . Id. at 7. He
     does not challenge the rejection of his initial petition for review, which we find
     was clearly noncompliant because it vastly exceeded the 30 -page limitation that
     he was notified of in the initial decision. Id. at 5, 34.
¶6         The Clerk of the Board’s rejection letter clearly notified the appellant that a
     perfected petition for review had to be filed by October 21, 2016. PFR File,
     Tab 1. We reject the appellant’s assertion that he did not receive the rejection
     letter until November 16, 2016. The Board’s regulations provide that a registered
     e-filer, like the appellant, agrees to accept documents through electronic service
     and is required to monitor his case activity at the Repository at e -Appeal Online
     to ensure that he receives all case-related documents. IAF, Tab 1 at 2; Rivera v.
     Social Security Administration, 111 M.S.P.R. 581, ¶ 5 (2009); 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.14(e)(1), (j)(3). They further provide that pleadings and Board documents
     served electronically on registered e-filers are deemed received on the date of
     electronic submission. Rivera, 111 M.S.P.R. 581, ¶ 5; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2).
     When a statute or regulation “deems” something to have been done, the event is
     considered to have occurred whether or not it actually did. Rivera, 111 M.S.P.R.
     581, ¶ 5. Thus, we deem the appellant to have received the rejection letter on
     October 14, 2016, and his perfected petition for review was, therefore, untimely
     filed by nearly 1 month. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.
¶7         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. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f)-(g).
     To establish good cause for the untimely filing, a party must show that he
     exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under th e particular circumstances
     of the case. See Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184
                                                                                       4

     (1980).   To determine if 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
     which similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his
     petition. 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).
¶8        We find that the appellant has not demonstrated good cause for th e untimely
     filing of his petition for review.    His nearly 1-month delay in filing is not
     insignificant. See, e.g., Floyd v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R.
     260, ¶ 6 (2003) (finding a 1-month delay not minimal); Crozier v. Department of
     Transportation, 93 M.S.P.R. 438, ¶ 7 (2003) (finding a 13-day delay not
     minimal). Although the appellant is pro se, he is an attorney experienced with
     legal matters and familiar with Board procedures as a former agency
     representative. PFR File, Tab 5 at 26-29. Moreover, his argument that he did not
     receive the rejection letter until after the deadline had passed is not a reasonable
     excuse and does not establish that he exercised due diligence in monitoring his
     case as required under the Board’s regulations. See Rivera, 111 M.S.P.R. 581,
     ¶ 7 (finding that the appellant failed to show that he exercised due diligence in
     monitoring his case as a registered e-filer); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(j)(3). In addition,
     the administrative judge notified the appellant of the Board’s length limitations
     for a petition for review and of the need to request a waiver of such limitations at
     least 3 days before the filing deadline. ID at 64; see Mendoza v. Merit Systems
     Protection Board, 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc); Morris v.
     Department of the Navy, 123 M.S.P.R. 662, ¶ 13 (2016) (finding that “[l]itigants
     before the Board are expected to comply with all orders issued by the Board and
     to comply with the Board's regulations”).
                                                                                           5

¶9         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
     the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
     of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
     Board regarding the removal appeal.

                              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 b elow 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).

     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

      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 tha t 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
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

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 revi ew 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.
                                                                            9

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.