Court Opinion

ID: 9373263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:48.815353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.630418
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     BENJAMIN CUNNINGHAM,                            DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         NY-3443-17-0015-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL,                      DATE: November 2, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Benjamin Cunningham, Bronx, New York, pro se.

           Amy Beckett, Esquire, and Kenneth Hendrickson, Washington, D.C., 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 his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
     as this one only in the following circumstances:        the initial decision contains
     erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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 argument 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 AFFIRM the initial
     decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed an appeal alleging that he was a “Federal crime victim”
     and, among other things, that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) had unlawfully
     dismissed his fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement complaint that he filed
     against the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), simply
     because he is “not a Federal employee.” Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 2-3.
     Because it appeared that the Board may not have jurisdiction over the appeal, the
     administrative judge issued two separate show cause orders that explained the
     jurisdictional issues in this appeal and provided the appellant with an opportunity
     to provide evidence and argument to establish that: (1) he is an employee under
     5 U.S.C. § 7511; and (2) an adverse action as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7512 had
     occurred. IAF, Tabs 3, 9. Without holding a hearing, the administrative judge
     issued an initial decision finding that, although the appellant responded to her
     2
       The appellant also filed a motion for leave to file additional pleadings. P etition for
     Review File, Tab 7. He has failed to sufficiently describe the nature of, and the need
     for, the additional pleadings, as required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(a)(5). Further, the
     appellant has failed to explain how these additional pleadings would warrant a different
     outcome than that of the initial decision; that is, the Board lacks jurisdiction over his
     appeal. Accordingly, the appellant’s motion is denied.
                                                                                       3

     jurisdictional orders by referring to newspapers and various court hearings, he did
     not dispute that he was not a current or prior Federal employee or allege that he
     was an applicant for employment. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID) at 4. The
     administrative judge also found that the appellant did not dispute that he was not
     appealing an adverse action as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7512.            Id.   Finally,
     concerning the appellant’s apparent claim that the Board has jurisdiction over his
     appeal because he is a non-Federal employee whistleblower, the administrative
     judge found that the appellant is not an “employee” entitled to protection under
     the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act or the Whistleblower Protection
     Act. ID at 5-6. Accordingly, the administrative judge found that the appellant
     failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the Board has jurisdiction over his
     appeal. ID at 6.
¶3         The appellant has filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR)
     File, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response in opposition. PFR File, Tab 3.

                        DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant has failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the Board has
     jurisdiction over his appeal.
¶4         On review, the appellant has resubmitted documents he filed below and
     asserts   that   the   administrative   judge’s   decision   is   “ ILLEGAL”    and
     “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” because it is “protecting the USMS Agency’s
     FRAUDULENT federal crime behavior which was unlawfully FUNDED by the
     United States Government’s Tax-Dollars.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 9 (emphasis and
     grammar as in the original); IAF, Tabs 1, 4-6, 10-11. He also challenges OSC’s
     dismissing his complaint on the basis that he is not a Federal employee. PFR
     File, Tab 1 at 10.
¶5         Although the appellant appears to reassert the claims he raised below, i.e.,
     that he was mistreated by the USMS and that OSC improperly dismissed his
     complaint against the agency, PFR File, Tab 1; IAF, Tabs 1, 4-6, 10, 11, he does
     not challenge the administrative judge’s jurisdictional findings nor provid e
                                                                                     4

     evidence or argument showing that the Board has jurisdiction over this appeal.
     Therefore, because the appellant has raised no arguments challenging the
     administrative judge’s jurisdictional findings, he has shown no error by the
     administrative judge in dismissing his appeal for lack of Board jurisdiction. See
     Tines v. Department of the Air Force, 56 M.S.P.R. 90, 92 (1992) (finding that a
     petition for review must contain sufficient specificity to enable the Board to
     ascertain whether there is a serious evidentiary challenge justifying a complete
     review of the record); Weaver v. Department of the Navy, 2 M.S.P.R. 129, 133
     (1980) (finding that, before the Board will undertake a complete review of the
     record, the petitioning party must explain why the challenged factual
     determination is incorrect and identify the specific evidence in the recor d that
     demonstrates the error), review denied, 669 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
¶6        Furthermore, it is undisputed that the appellant is not a current or former
     Federal employee, and he did not allege that he was an applicant for a Federal
     position. Therefore, we discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s
     well-reasoned findings that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this matter .   See
     Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 (1997) (finding no reason to
     disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she considered the evidence as a
     whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned conclusions); see
     generally Willis v. Department of Agriculture, 141 F.3d 1139, 1144 (Fed. Cir.
     1998) (finding that the Whistleblower Protection Act “is intended to protect
     government employees who risk their own personal job security for the
     advancement of the pubic good by disclosing abuses by government personnel”)
     (emphasis added); Aviles v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 799 F.3d 457 (5th
     Cir. 2015) (upholding the Board’s decision that a former Internal Revenue
     Service employee’s report to his superiors that ExxonMobil Corporation has
                                                                                      5

allegedly committed tax fraud did not constitute a protected disc losure because it
concerned an allegation against a private entity). 3

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      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.

3
  The appellant filed three additional appeals, all of which were dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Cunningham v. Office of Special Counsel, MSPB Docket No. NY-3443-
18-0055-I-1, Initial Decision (Feb. 27, 2018); Cunningham v. Administrative
Conference of the United States, MSPB Docket No. NY-3443-18-0200-I-1, Initial
Decision (Sept. 24, 2018); Cunningham v. Office of Special Counsel, MSPB Docket No.
NY-3443-18-0201-I-1, Initial Decision (Sept. 21, 2018). The appellant’s petitions for
review of those three initial decisions will be resolved separately.
4
  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

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:
                              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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

      (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
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. 5   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.

5
   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

      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.
      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.