Court Opinion

ID: 9961570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:00:39.094409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:59.006574
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JOSEPH C. ANORUO,                               DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        SF-1221-22-0024-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: April 18, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Joseph C. Anoruo , Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se.

      Erin L. Collins , Esquire, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 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 individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                  BACKGROUND
      On October 14, 2021, the appellant filed a Board appeal alleging, among
other things, that he had sought corrective action from the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC) for various agency misdeeds; however, OSC had purportedly
mishandled his complaint.       Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5-33.          The
appellant requested that the Board stay his appeal while OSC considered his
request for reconsideration of his complaint. Id. at 5-6. The appellant did not
provide his OSC complaint, OSC’s close-out letter, or any documentation that he
submitted to OSC.
      On October 18, 2021, the administrative judge issued an order wherein she
explained the circumstances under which the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate
IRA appeals, and she ordered the appellant to identify his claims and to provide
specific evidence and argument related thereto not later than October 28, 2021.
IAF, Tab 4 at 1-9.    The appellant did not respond; instead, on November 28,
2021, he filed a motion requesting that his appeal be stayed “pending the
resolution of [an] accepted request for reconsideration of [an] OSC decision
[issued on August 11, 2021].”      IAF, Tab 8 at 4.     In this filing, the appellant
averred that he had not seen the administrative judge’s October 18, 2021 order
until November 28, 2021, because of various “unavoidable circumstances,”
including a family “hospitalization event” and his pursuit of other litigation. Id.
      The administrative judge denied the appellant’s request on November 29,
2021, IAF, Tab 9 at 1-2, 2 and, on December 9, 2021, she issued an initial decision
dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction, IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID)
at 1, 7. In so doing, the administrative judge explained that it was unclear as to
what issues the appellant raised with OSC and, therefore, the appellant had failed
to show what, if any, claims he had exhausted. ID at 5-6. The administrative

2
  In her order denying the request, the administrative judge provided the appellant
additional time, until December 6, 2021, to respond to her order regarding jurisdiction
and/or a motion to dismiss that the agency had filed on November 9, 2021. IAF, Tab 9
at 2. The appellant did not respond to either filing.
                                                                                   3

judge notified the appellant that the initial decision would become final on
January 13, 2022, unless a petition for review was filed by that date. ID at 7.
      On January 19, 2022, the appellant filed a petition for review. Petition for
Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. 3 In his petition, the appellant asserts, among other
things, that he did not receive the initial decision until January 19, 2022, because
of “home computer e-mail issues.” Id. at 4. He also references car trouble and
unspecified “[COVID]-19 related issues,” and avers that both the OSC attorney
assigned to his case and the administrative judge were under “undue influence.”
Id. at 4-5, 7. With his petition, the appellant provides email correspondence with
the Office of the Clerk of the Board suggesting that, in October 2021, he
experienced difficulties submitting an attachment with a Board filing. Id. at 8-11.
      The Office of the Clerk of the Board notified the appellant that his petition
for review was untimely and explained that he must file a motion asking the
Board to accept the petition for review as untimely and/or to waive the time limit
for good cause. PFR File, Tab 2 at 1. The appellant thereafter filed a motion
requesting that the Board waive the time limit for good cause. PFR File, Tab 3
at 4-6.   In so requesting, the appellant seemingly asserts, among other things,
that, on January 19, 2022, he experienced car problems, which caused him to
“suspect[] imminent danger” and prompted him to log into the “MSPB portal for
the first time since November 2021” and see that an initial decision had been
issued. Id. at 4. He also asserts that he was “encumbered with [an American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)] grievance compliant” and other
“[COVID]-19 associated problems, kids and family school preparation and
holiday,” which caused him to be “out of work for about 3-4 weeks.”
Id. at 4 & n.2 (grammar in original).    With his motion, the appellant provides
documents related to his AFGE grievance and his car troubles. Id. at 7-13, 15-17.

3
  The appellant’s ostensible petition, however, was entitled “NOTICE OF PETITION
FOR REVIEW,” and indicated that the appellant would “be submitting a petition for
review on or before 2/18/2022 or as may be ordered by [the] Board.” PFR File, Tab 1
at 4, 7.
                                                                                     4

He also provides an email indicating that OSC issued a “final decision to close
[his] case” on January 18, 2022. Id. at 14. The agency has responded to the
appellant’s petition for review, arguing that the appellant “has a lengthy history
of missing deadlines and blaming his email account and/or general family issues”
and that, as a registered e-filer, the appellant consented to accept electronic
service of pleadings. PFR File, Tab 5 at 4-5. The appellant has filed a reply
contending, among other things, that the initial decision went to his junk email
folder. PFR File, Tab 6 at 5. With his reply, the appellant provides a screen shot
of his email inbox and email correspondence with agency officials regarding his
requests for annual leave for 3 days in January 2021. 4 Id. at 10-12.

                                     ANALYSIS
       A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the issuance of the
initial decision, or, if the petitioner shows that he received the initial decision
more than 5 days after the date of the issuance, within 30 days after the date he
received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial decision
was issued on December 9, 2021, and electronically sent to the appellant the same
day.   IAF, Tab 11 at 1.     Documents served on registered e-filers are deemed
received on the date of electronic submission; thus, the appellant’s petition for
review is untimely by 6 days. PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2)
(2021).
       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(g). To
establish good cause for an untimely filing, the appellant must show that he
exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances

4
  Following the submission of his reply, the appellant filed a motion requesting to
submit a “brief and supporting documents” in support of his petition for review. PFR
File, Tab 7 at 4-5. The motion, however, neither identifies what the appellant seeks to
submit nor explains why he was unable to submit the unidentified evidence/argument
before the close of the record on review. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(k). Accordingly, we
deny the motion.
                                                                                      5

of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).
In determining whether there is good cause, the Board considers the length of the
delay, the reasonableness of the excuse and showing of due diligence, whether the
appellant 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 that similarly shows
a causal relationship to his inability to file a timely petition.     See Wyeroski v.
Department of Transportation, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 7, aff’d, 253 F. App’x 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
       We find that the appellant has not demonstrated good cause for the
untimely filing of his petition for review. Although the appellant is pro se and his
6-day delay is not especially lengthy, we find the appellant’s explanations for his
untimeliness unpersuasive.     As a registered e-filer, the appellant consented to
accept all documents issued by the Board in electronic form and to monitor case
activity at e-Appeal to ensure that he had received all case -related documents;
indeed, he was responsible for ensuring that email from @mspb.gov was not
blocked by filters. IAF, Tab 1 at 2; see Rivera v. Social Security Administration,
111 M.S.P.R. 581, ¶ 7 (2009) (finding that the appellant failed to show that he
exercised due diligence in monitoring his case as a registered e -filer); see also
5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(j)(2)-(3) (2021). Moreover, the appellant’s vague assertions
regarding his family and a holiday do not provide a basis for waiver of the filing
deadline. 5   See Fields v. U.S. Postal Service, 56 M.S.P.R. 78, 80 (1992)
(explaining that general family difficulties do not constitute good cause for
5
  The appellant’s assertions regarding unspecified “[COVID]-19 associated problems”
are similarly unavailing. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4. Indeed, in notifying the appellant that
his petition was untimely, the Office of the Clerk of the Board explained that, to the
extent the appellant was alleging that his health affected his ability to meet filing
deadlines, he must do the following: (1) identify the time period during which he
suffered from the illness; (2) submit medical or other evidence showing that he suffered
from the alleged illness during that time period; and (3) explain how the illness
prevented him from timely filing his petition for review. PFR File, Tab 2 at 7 n.1. The
appellant did not provide this information.
                                                                                        6

waiver of the deadline for filing a petition for review). Accordingly, we find that
the appellant has failed to show good cause for his delay, and we decline to
excuse the same. See Lockhart v. Office of Personnel Management, 94 M.S.P.R.
396, ¶¶ 7-8 (2003) (declining to excuse a 5 -day delay in filing a petition for
review when the pro se appellant failed to show good cause for the same).
      To the extent the appellant’s filings dispute the administrative judge’s
jurisdictional conclusion or pertain to the merits of his IRA appeal, we find that a
different outcome is not warranted.        See Guevara v. Department of the Navy,
112 M.S.P.R. 39, ¶ 7 (2009) (finding that the appellant failed to establish good
cause for his untimely filed petition for review when he merely argued the merits
of the agency’s removal action).        Indeed, the appellant does not allege, and
nothing in his filings on review suggests, that any of the new evidence that he
provides on review challenges the initial decision; rather, the appellant seemingly
provides this evidence to support his unpersuasive claim that good cause exists
for his untimeliness. 6 Cf. Armstrong v. Department of the Treasury, 591 F.3d
1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (directing the Board to consider whether an appellant
diligently filed newly discovered evidence related to a claim of agency fraud with
the Board).
      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 appellant’s IRA appeal.
6
  As stated, the appellant provides a January 18, 2022 email indicating that OSC issued
a “final decision to close [his] case.” PFR File, Tab 3 at 14. To the extent the appellant
argues that this email evinces error with the administrative judge’s jurisdictional
conclusion, a different outcome is not warranted.             Indeed, despite numerous
opportunities to do so, the appellant has failed to show what claims he exhausted with
OSC. Accordingly, the email does not provide a basis to disturb the initial decision.
See Mason v. Department of Homeland Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 135, ¶ 8 (2011)
(explaining that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3), an IRA appellant must to seek
corrective action from OSC before seeking corrective action from the Board, which he
may demonstrate proof of through his initial OSC complaint, evidence that he amended
his initial complaint, and his written correspondence with OSC).
                                                                                      7

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 7
      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 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).

7
  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.
                                                                                        8

      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
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
                                                                                  9

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
                                                                                     10

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. 8 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

8
   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.
                                                                           11

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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.