Court Opinion

ID: 9373359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:25.82822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:41.197759
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ADAM C. POWELL,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-0714-18-0579-C-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: September 30, 2022
       AFFAIRS,
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Adam C. Powell, Marion, Illinois, pro se.

           Grant T. Swinger, Hines, Illinois, for the agency.

           Michael M. McFatridge, Esquire, Danville, Illinois, 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 compliance initial
     decision, which denied his petition to enforce a settlement agreement he entered

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     into with the agency. 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).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The parties entered into an agreement settling the appellant’s appeal of his
     removal on December 21, 2019.         Powell v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     MSPB Docket No. CH-0714-18-0579-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13 at
     5-7. The administrative judge entered the settlement agreement into the record
     and issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal as settled on January 28,
     2019. IAF, Tab 14, Initial Decision at 1-3. The appellant subsequently filed a
     petition for enforcement alleging that the agency breached a number of terms of
     the agreement, and on April 16, 2019, the administrative judge issued a
     compliance initial decision denying the appellant’s petition for enforcement,
     concluding that the agency established that it was in compliance with the terms of
     the agreement and the appellant failed to present any evidence that his agreement
     to settle the appeal was the product of misinformation. Compliance File , Tab 9,
     Compliance Initial Decision (CID) at 1-5.         The compliance initial decision
     informed the appellant that the decision would become final on May 21, 2019,
     unless he filed a petition for review by that date. CID at 5.
¶3         The appellant filed a petition for review over 2 years later, on February 14,
     2022. 2 Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.       In his petition for review, he
     challenges the merits of the underlying removal action, noting that “several cases
     that pertain [to 38 U.S.C. § 714] have been overturned.”         Id. at 3, 5.    On
     February 16, 2022, the Office of the Clerk of the Board notified the appellant

     2
       The appellant is a registered e-filer. IAF, Tab 1 at 2. Registration as an e-filer
     constitutes consent to accept electronic service of documents issued by the Board.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(e).
                                                                                        3

     that, because he filed his petition for review more than 35 days following the
     issuance of the April 16, 2019 compliance initial decision, it was untimely. PFR
     File, Tab 2 at 1. The letter explained to the appellant that the Board’s regulations
     require a petition for review that appears untimely to be accompanied by a motion
     to accept the filing as timely and/or to waive the time limit for good cause, set a
     deadline for the appellant to file such a motion, and provided a sample motion.
     Id. at 1-3, 6-8. The appellant did not file the required motion concerning the
     timeliness of his petition for review. The agency did not file a response to the
     appellant’s petition for review.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4         Generally, a petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the date
     of issuance of the initial decision or, if the petitioner shows that he received the
     initial decision more than 5 days after the date of issuance , within 30 days after
     the date he received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board may
     waive the time limit for filing a petition for review upon a showing of good cau se
     for the untimely filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish good cause, the
     appellant must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under
     the particular circumstances of the case. Palermo v. Department of the Navy,
     120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4 (2014). 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 limit or of unavoidable
     casualty or misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability
     to timely file his petition. Id.
¶5         Here, the administrative judge informed the appellant that the compliance
     initial decision would become final on May 21, 2019, unless a petition for review
     was filed by that date. CID at 5. The appellant filed his petition for review on
                                                                                        4

     February 14, 2022, more than 2 years and 8 months late, and failed to respond to
     the letter from the Office of the Clerk of the Board instructing him to explain his
     untimeliness. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1, Tab 2. An appellant who files a petition for
     review late but does not file the required motion concerning the timeliness of his
     petition for review has failed to show the due diligence and ordinary prudence
     necessary for the Board to find good cause for his delay in filing.      Galleno v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 63 M.S.P.R. 440, 442 (1994) (finding that an
     appellant who filed her petition for review 4 months late, and failed to file the
     required motion on timeliness, failed to show good cause for waiver of the filing
     deadline), aff’d, 48 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table); Goldberg v. Department
     of Defense, 39 M.S.P.R. 515, 518 (1989) (stating that in the absence of good
     cause shown, the Board will not waive its timeliness requirements even if the
     delay is minimal); Mejia v. Office of Personnel Management, 38 M.S.P.R. 472,
     473 (1988) (finding that, where the appellant failed to respond to the Clerk ’s
     notice concerning the timeliness of his petition for review and his untimely filing
     did not include a motion for waiver of the time limit or an affidavit or statement
     to establish good cause, the appellant had not demonstrated good cause for the
     untimely filing). Because the appellant failed to file the required motion, as was
     explained in the February 16, 2022 letter acknowledging his petition for review,
     we find that he has failed to establish good cause for the waiver of the time limit.
     Galleno, 63 M.S.P.R. at 442; Goldberg, 39 M.S.P.R. at 518; Mejia, 38 M.S.P.R.
     at 473; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
¶6        Although he failed to respond to the Office of the Clerk of the Board’s
     notice instructing him to demonstrate that his petition for review was timely filed
     or that good cause existed for the late filing, PFR File, Tab 2, the appellant
     appears to suggest in his petition for review that recent changes to the law have
     called into question the validity of the removal action underlying his original
     Board appeal, PFR File, Tab 1 at 3, 5.        To the extent that the appellant is
                                                                                           5

     attempting to challenge the validity of the agreement settling his Board appeal, he
     may file a separate petition for review of the initial decision issued in Powell v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. CH-0714-18-0579-I-1. We
     note, however, that such a petition for review would likely be untimely and
     require explanation for the delay in filing.
¶7         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 compliance initial decision remains the final
     decision of the Board regarding the compliance appeal.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
           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 s eeking 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

     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

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. If so, you may obtain
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

      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
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:

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
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

                             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.