Court Opinion

ID: 9373347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:21.102988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.985665
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     FAYE R. HOBSON,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-1221-17-0203-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: October 6, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Faye R. Hobson, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, pro se.

           Melissa Martinez, Peachtree City, Georgia, 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 her individual right of action (IRA) appeal without prejudice, subject to
     automatic refiling at a later date. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
     only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains erroneous

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
     the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
     involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
     the case; or new and material evidence or legal argu ment is available that, despite
     the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
     After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
     has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
     review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and FORWARD the matter
     to the Central Regional Office for adjudication as a timely refiled appeal.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2         For purposes of this decision, we note that the appellant previously filed her
     first IRA appeal, Hobson I, alleging that eight nonselections between 2012
     and 2014 were the result of her protected whistleblowing activity.        Hobson v.
     Department of Defense (Hobson I), MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-15-0470-W-1,
     Initial Appeal File (0470 IAF), Tab 115, Initial Decision (0470 ID); Hobson v.
     Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-15-0470-W-1, Final Order
     (Oct. 4, 2022). In that case, the administrative judge found that the appellant met
     her burden of proving exhaustion through Office of Special Counsel (OSC) File
     No. MA-15-0932. 0470 ID at 6-7; see 0470 IAF, Tab 1 at 8. She also found that
     the appellant proved that she engaged in protected activity when, in 2005, she
     made a disclosure concerning the agency’s alleged noncompliance with state and
     Federal special education requirements at Barkley Elementary School. 0470 ID
     at 7-8. However, the administrative judge found that the appellant failed to prove
     that this protected disclosure was a contributing factor in her nonselections .
     0470 ID at 8-24.    Therefore, she denied the appellant’s request for corrective
     action. 0470 ID at 24. The appellant filed a petition for review.         Hobson v.
                                                                                        3

     Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-15-0470-W-1, Petition for
     Review File, Tab 1.
¶3           While Hobson I was pending, the appellant filed another complaint with
     OSC, File No. MA-16-4697.         Hobson v. Department of Defense (Hobson II),
     MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-17-0203-W-1, Initial Appeal File (0203 IAF), Tab 1
     at 2, 10-13. The instant IRA appeal, Hobson II, followed OSC’s closure of that
     complaint. Id. The administrative judge instructed the appellant to identify the
     precise issues involved in Hobson II, separate from those addressed in Hobson I,
     and meet her jurisdictional burden. 0203 IAF, Tabs 3 -4.         After the appellant
     responded, 0203 IAF, Tabs 7-11, the administrative judge dismissed Hobson II
     without prejudice, 0203 IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (0203 ID) at 7 -8.         She
     explained that there was at least some overlap between Hobson I and Hobson II,
     the former was pending review before the Board, and that review could affect the
     latter. Id. The administrative judge’s decision further explained that Hobson II
     would be automatically refiled within 10 days of the Board’s decision in
     Hobson I, or on September 28, 2017, whichever was earlier. 0203 ID at 8.
¶4           Rather than wait for the automatic refiling of Hobson II, the appellant filed
     a petition for review.       Hobson v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket
     No. CH-1221-17-0203-W-1, Petition for Review (0203 PFR) File, Tab 1. The
     agency has filed a response, and the appellant has replied. 0203 PFR File, Tabs
     3, 5.
¶5           An administrative judge has wide discretion to control the proceedings
     before her, and a dismissal without prejudice to refiling is a procedural option
     committed to her sound discretion.        Gingery v. Department of the Treasury,
     111 M.S.P.R. 134, ¶ 9 (2009). The Board has held that an administrative judge
     may sua sponte dismiss an appeal without prejudice when such a dismissal is in
     the interests of fairness, due process, and administrative efficiency. Gidwani v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 74 M.S.P.R. 509, 511 (1997).
                                                                                        4

¶6        The appellant’s arguments on review do not demonstrate that the
     administrative judge abused her discretion in dismissing this case without
     prejudice for automatic refiling at a later date. 0203 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6 -13. In
     fact, it appears that the appellant’s arguments merely reflect a misunderstan ding
     of that dismissal; she essentially has argued the merits of her appeal, rather than
     the propriety of the administrative judge’s decision to delay that appeal. Id.; see
     generally Brown v. Department of the Navy, 102 M.S.P.R. 377, ¶ 14 (2006)
     (recognizing that a dismissal without prejudice is not a decision on the merits);
     Peltier v. Department of Justice, 79 M.S.P.R. 674, 677 (1998) (same).
¶7        Even if the administrative judge had erred in dismissing Hobson II without
     prejudice for automatic refiling, the matter is now moot.        The administrative
     judge determined that Hobson II would be automatically refiled after either
     September 28, 2017, or the Board’s decision in Hobson I. 0203 ID at 8. Both of
     those intervening events have occurred, so Hobson II is ripe for adjudication,
     regardless of our decision on the propriety of the dismissal without prejudice.
     See Henry v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 110 M.S.P.R. 213, ¶ 6 (2008)
     (concluding that the Board need not determine whether the administrative judge
     abused her discretion in dismissing an appeal without prejudice pending an
     intervening event because that event had since occurred and the appeal was ripe
     for adjudication). Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s petition concerning the
     dismissal of Hobson II without prejudice and forward the appeal to the Central
     Regional Office for docketing and adjudication as a refiled appeal. 2

     2
      We have reviewed the relevant legislation enacted during the pendency of this appeal
     and have concluded that it does not affect the outcome of the appeal.
                                                                                         5

                           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 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).
      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:

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

                             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 partic ular
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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).              If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative re ceives 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
                                                                                 7

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
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
                                                                                      8

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2 302(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:
                               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.

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

      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.