Court Opinion

ID: 9373766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:13.51531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.805688
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MELISSA J. ANDERSON,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DE-315H-15-0003-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: April 14, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Melissa J. Anderson, Logan, Utah, pro se.

           Glenn R. Cascon, San Francisco, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed her appeal as withdrawn.          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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
¶2        In early August 2014, the agency terminated the appellant from her Tax
     Examining Technician position during her probationary period.          Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 1 at 7. In late September 2014, the appellant filed the instant
     appeal, challenging the termination.      Id. at 1-3.    The administrative judge
     instructed the appellant to meet her burdens concerning both jurisdiction and
     timeliness. IAF, Tabs 2-3. In the days that followed, the appellant withdrew her
     appeal.   IAF, Tab 7; Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 2.              Therefore, the
     administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal. ID at 1-2.
     The decision included instructions that it would become final on November 20,
     2014, unless a petition for review was filed by that date. ID at 2.
¶3        In August 2017, the appellant filed the petition for review currently before
     us. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. She also filed a motion to accept her
     filing as timely. PFR File, Tab 3. The agency has filed a response. PFR File,
     Tab 4.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶4        The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
     within 35 days of the issuance of the initial decision or, if the appellant shows
     that the initial decision was received more than 5 days after the date of issuance,
     within 30 days after the date she received the initial decision.            5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e). The Board will waive its filing deadline only upon a showing of
     good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f), (g). To establish good
     cause for an untimely filing, a party must show that she 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).              The Board will
     consider the length of the delay, the reasonableness of her exc use and her
     showing of due diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has
     presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that
                                                                                      3

     affected her ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or
     misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely
     file her 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).
¶5        Applying these factors, we find that the appellant has failed to establish
     good cause for her untimely petition for review. Although she is proceeding pro
     se, the appellant’s delay of approximately 2 years and 9 months is substantial.
     Compare ID at 2, with PFR File, Tab 1; see Lobell v. Department of Agriculture,
     98 M.S.P.R. 582, ¶ 5 (2005) (finding a 2-year delay to be substantial, despite an
     appellant’s pro se status).   In addition, the appellant has failed to adequately
     explain the entirety of that delay. According to the appellant, her probationary
     termination stemmed from a charge of absence without leave (AWOL), and she
     had text messages showing she should not have been considered AWOL, but she
     lost proof of those messages around the time of her initial appeal by dropping her
     phone in a bathtub. PFR File, Tab 3 at 1-2. She reports discovering the text
     messages again in “2016 when [she] found [the] verifiable record,” by purchasing
     a new phone and downloading old messages from the cloud. Id. at 2. However,
     she has failed to provide any explanation for the apparent delay between that
     2016 discovery of her text messages and her August 2017 petition for review.
     See Copley v. Department of Energy, 58 M.S.P.R. 437, 439-40 (1993) (dismissing
     a petition for review as untimely without good cause when, among other things,
     the appellant failed to explain the months-long delay between his purported
     discovery of new evidence and the filing of his petition).
¶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
     of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
     Board regarding the dismissal of the probationary termination appeal as
     withdrawn.
                                                                                         4

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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 case s 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:

2
  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.
                                                                                    5

                             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. ____ , 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
                                                                                  6

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
                                                                                       7

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. 3    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.

3
   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 b y 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 c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                        8

      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.