Court Opinion

ID: 9965803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 15:01:54.893879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.262215
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1501    Document: 19     Page: 1   Filed: 05/03/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   HEATHER CLARK,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2024-1501
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-1221-24-0032-W-1.
                 ______________________

     Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     In response to this court’s March 15, 2024 show cause
 order, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges dismissal
 while Heather Clark urges the court to “remand” “for
 proper due process, with a new judge” because her case has
 been “unlawful[ly] stay[ed],” ECF No. 16 at 3, 5.
     Ms. Clark filed a whistleblower individual right of ac-
 tion appeal with the Board on October 17, 2023. On Feb-
 ruary 13, 2024, the administrative judge issued an order
 denying Ms. Clark’s motion to dismiss based on alleged
Case: 24-1501     Document: 19     Page: 2     Filed: 05/03/2024

 2                                              CLARK v. MSPB

 judicial misconduct, directing the parties by the end of that
 month to address whether Ms. Clark’s resignation was vol-
 untary, and to caution Ms. Clark against sending inappro-
 priate communications to the Board. ECF No. 18 at 24.
 Ms. Clark appears to seek this court’s review of that order.
     This court’s jurisdiction is limited to “an appeal from a
 final order or final decision of the . . . Board.” 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(9). “[A]n order is final only when it ends the liti-
 gation on the merits and leaves nothing for the [tribunal]
 to do but execute the judgment.” Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). Here,
 the Board has not finally resolved Ms. Clark’s appeal.
 Ms. Clark’s reliance on Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
 Civil Procedure is unavailing because that rule does not
 apply to the Board, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (noting the rules
 apply to federal district courts), and, in any event, the Feb-
 ruary 13, 2024 order did not resolve any claims and was
 not certified by the administrative judge for immediate ap-
 peal to the Board. Thus, there has been no final, appeala-
 ble decision or order. If necessary, Ms. Clark may seek this
 court’s review of her case and arguments of error(s) after
 the Board issues a final decision or order in her proceed-
 ings.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed as premature.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 May 3, 2024
    Date