Court Opinion

ID: 9893736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 15:01:11.619009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:02.036267
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2000    Document: 15      Page: 1    Filed: 10/30/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                   MARY A. FREEMAN,
                       Petitioner

                              v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                         2023-2000
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. AT-0831-17-0566-I-1.
                 ______________________

   Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     In response to this court’s August 2, 2023, show cause
 order, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) urges
 dismissal of the appeal as untimely. Mary A. Freeman
 urges that the court not dismiss and states that she
 “need[s] legal representation on this.” ECF No. 14 at 1.
    In its final decision issued April 3, 2023, the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board affirmed OPM’s decision that Ms.
 Freeman was ineligible for a deferred retirement annuity.
Case: 23-2000     Document: 15      Page: 2    Filed: 10/30/2023

 2                                             FREEMAN v. OPM

 Ms. Freeman’s petition for review was stamped as received
 by this court 63 days later, on June 5, 2023.
     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), “a petition to review a
 final order or final decision of the Board . . . shall be filed
 within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final or-
 der or decision of the Board.” This court’s precedent makes
 clear that “filing requires actual receipt by the court, not
 just timely mailing,” and that this timeliness requirement
 is jurisdictional, which “precludes equitable exceptions.”
 Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed.
 Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).
     Ms. Freeman’s response includes a petition for review
 form, which she contends “was completed and received on
 June 2nd, 2023.” ECF No. 14 at 1. The attached form, how-
 ever, bears no indication that it was received on any par-
 ticular date, let alone June 2, 2023. The record instead
 reflects that Ms. Freeman’s petition was accepted for mail-
 ing by the United States Postal Service mid-afternoon on
 June 2, 2023, in Georgia, for delivery the next day (a Sat-
 urday), ECF No. 1-2 at 16, and that the court received her
 petition only on June 5, 2023, ECF No. 1-2 at 1 (stamped
 received “JUN 05 2023”). Since Ms. Freeman’s petition
 was not filed within the 60-day statutory deadline, we lack
 jurisdiction. * Because we clearly lack jurisdiction under
 the circumstances, we conclude that appointment of coun-
 sel here is not appropriate.

     *   Ms. Freeman’s filings suggest that she raised a dis-
 crimination claim before the Board, but as OPM correctly
 noted, nothing in the record suggests that Ms. Freeman al-
 leged at the Board that OPM’s underlying decision was
 based on discrimination, and therefore Ms. Freeman has
 not shown this is a case of discrimination under 5 U.S.C.
 § 7702 that might be subject to transfer to district court.
Case: 23-2000     Document: 15    Page: 3     Filed: 10/30/2023

 FREEMAN v. OPM                                               3

    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    (2) Any pending motions are denied.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                        FOR THE COURT

 October 30, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Clerk of Court