Court Opinion

ID: 9909824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 15:00:55.698371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:59.472294
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2216    Document: 28      Page: 1    Filed: 12/14/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                   MARTIN AKERMAN,
                       Petitioner

                              v.

       MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                         2023-2216
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-3443-22-0639-I-1.
                 ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

                         ORDER
     The Merit Systems Protection Board moves to dismiss
 Martin Akerman’s petition for review for lack of jurisdic-
 tion. Mr. Akerman responds with a request to “[q]uash”
 the motion and to “[p]roperly join[] and/or remand the case
 to the appropriate trial court(s).” ECF No. 25 at 3. He sep-
 arately moves the court to clarify and “certify” this court’s
 October 13, 2023, order, ECF No. 27 at 1, and to “bifurcate
 and transfer discriminatory elements,” ECF No. 3 at 1.
Case: 23-2216      Document: 28      Page: 2     Filed: 12/14/2023

 2                                              AKERMAN v. MSPB

      Mr. Akerman filed an appeal with the Board challeng-
 ing decisions of the Department of Defense Office of Inspec-
 tor General and the Inspector General of the Intelligence
 Community declining to open his requested investigation.
 On October 28, 2022, the administrative judge issued an
 initial decision dismissing the appeal, concluding the
 Board lacked jurisdiction over those decisions, and, to the
 extent this could be construed as an Individual Right of Ac-
 tion appeal, such appeal would be premature.
      Mr. Akerman subsequently filed a timely petition seek-
 ing review of the initial decision by the full Board. On June
 26, 2023, Mr. Akerman moved to withdraw his petition at
 the Board. The Board issued an order asking Mr. Akerman
 to confirm his intent to withdraw, but Mr. Akerman has so
 far failed to provide that confirmation. On June 27, 2023,
 Mr. Akerman filed this petition seeking review of the ini-
 tial decision. Mr. Akerman’s filings before this court state
 that he raised a discrimination claim before the Board and
 that he wishes to pursue judicial review of that claim.
      This court does not yet have authority to decide this
 case. Although this court has jurisdiction to review final
 decisions of the Board, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A), Mr. Akerman’s timely filed petition at the
 Board renders the initial decision non-final for purposes of
 our review. See § 7701(e)(1)(A); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a)
 (“The initial decision will not become the Board’s final de-
 cision if within the time limit for filing . . . any party files a
 petition for review . . . .”).
      We note two potential paths to this court’s future re-
 view. First, Mr. Akerman may wait to receive a final deci-
 sion from the full Board on his petition for Board review,
 at which point Mr. Akerman may seek this court’s review,
 if necessary, by filing a timely petition for review with this
 court. Alternatively, Mr. Akerman can confirm with the
 Board that his request to withdraw his petition was know-
 ing and voluntary, and then timely petition for our review
Case: 23-2216     Document: 28     Page: 3     Filed: 12/14/2023

 AKERMAN v. MSPB                                             3

 if, and when, the request has been granted, as the order
 dismissing his petition will constitute a final Board deci-
 sion.
     As for Mr. Akerman’s request to transfer some portion
 of this case to district court: the Board states that “it does
 not appear Mr. Akerman raised a claim of covered discrim-
 ination before the Board in connection with the challenged
 agency action” that might warrant such transfer. ECF No.
 24 at 8. Nothing in Mr. Akerman’s filings, and nothing in
 our review of the limited record, support a contrary conclu-
 sion. Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Akerman’s case be-
 fore the Board is an IRA appeal, “[d]iscrimination claims
 may not be raised in that context.” Young v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 961 F.3d 1323, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We ac-
 cordingly reject Mr. Akerman’s request to transfer.
     Mr. Akerman’s motion for clarification also asks,
 “whether the [October 13, 2023, order] was issued by a
 panel of judges or by the clerk of the court,” ECF No. 27
 at 2. That order (as this one) was issued by a panel of
 judges and merely signed by the Clerk of Court. See Fed.
 Cir. R. 45(c) (authorizing the Clerk of Court to sign a docu-
 ment “[f]or the [c]ourt” when directed by a judge or the
 court).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The Board’s motion to dismiss is granted. The pe-
 tition for review is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Case: 23-2216    Document: 28     Page: 4    Filed: 12/14/2023

 4                                          AKERMAN v. MSPB

     (3) The motion to clarify, ECF No. 27, is granted to the
 extent provided in this order. All other pending motions
 are denied.
                                            FOR THE COURT

 December 14, 2023
      Date