Court Opinion

ID: 9373010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:07.815949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.044340
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SIM HENDERSON,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                          AT-0831-15-0578-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                              DATE: January 25, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Sim Henderson, Auburn, Alabama, pro se.

           Thomas Styer, 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
     dismissed his appeal under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. For the reasons set

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 no t
     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

     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).

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2        On May 15, 2015, the appellant filed an appeal seeking to challenge the
     June 18, 1999 reconsideration decision of Office of Personne l Management
     (OPM) denying his application for disability retirement benefits under the Civil
     Service Retirement System as untimely filed. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1.
     The administrative judge issued an initial decision that dismissed the appeal
     based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel due to the fact that the appellant had
     filed an appeal of the same action on October 4, 2001, which was dismissed on
     December 10, 2001, as untimely filed without a showing of good cause. 2 On
     September 22, 2004, the Board denied the appellant’s petition for review of the
     initial decision. Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket
     No. AT-0831-02-0037-I-1, Final Order (Sept. 22, 2004).
¶3        In this appeal, the initial decision informed the parties that it would become
     final, unless either party filed a petition for review by September 4, 2015. IAF,
     Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID) at 4.      The appellant, however, did not file his
     petition for review until almost 1 year and 10 months later, on July 17, 2017.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4        A petition for review generally must be filed within 35 days after the date
     an initial decision is issued. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board will waive this
     time limit only upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(f). To establish good cause for the untimely filing of an

     2
       Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-02-0037-
     I-1, Initial Decision (Dec. 10, 2001).
                                                                                          3

     appeal, 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 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). Here, when the appellant filed his petition on July 17, 2017, the Office
     of the Clerk of the Board notified him in a letter dated July 20, 2017, that his
     petition was untimely and enclosed a “Motion to Accept Filing as Timely or
     Waive Time Limit” form, and advised the appellant that the Board might issue an
     order dismissing his petition as untimely if he did not submit the form, an
     affidavit, or a sworn statement. PFR File, Tab 2. The appellant failed to respond.
¶5         While the appellant is apparently acting pro se, that fact alone cannot
     overcome his filing delay and the absence of evidence showing due diligence.
     De La Cruz Espan v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 403, ¶¶ 6-7
     (2004). Because the record reveals that the appellant (1) was notified of the time
     limit for filing a petition for review, (2) was provided the opportunit y to explain
     his untimely filing and advised of what he had to submit to support a motion to
     accept his filing as timely or to waive the time limit, and (3) failed to comply
     with the Board’s instructions on timeliness, the Board finds that the appellant ha s
     failed to demonstrate due diligence or ordinary prudence which would excuse his
     late filing. Therefore, the Board finds no good cause exists for the filing delay.
¶6         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
     the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
                                                                                      4

of the petition for review. 3 The initial decision remains the final decision of the
Board regarding the dismissal of the appeal under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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 t ime
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

3
  Nevertheless, we have reviewed the appellant’s claim that he is requesting another
opportunity to appeal the dismissal of his untimely filing of his claim for retirement
benefits. PFR File, Tab 1. The appellant asserts that he should be allowed to appeal
the Board’s decision because his medical records show that he was at the Veterans
Administration Hospital for psychiatric care. Id. However, while the appellant
contends that his medical records show that he was unable to timely file his request to
OPM for retirement benefits within the 1-year filing deadline after his separation from
Federal employment in 1991, he has provided no evidence or argument to show good
cause for his untimely filing of his petition for review in this appeal. Id.
4
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Boar d 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

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.
      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. I f so, you may obtain
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

      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 chall enge 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 ei ther with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 5   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:

5
   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

                             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 war rants 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.