Court Opinion

ID: 9376224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 15:00:37.322448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:05.289053
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1118     Document: 14     Page: 1    Filed: 03/02/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                DANIEL ASPREC NOVILLA,
                        Petitioner

                              v.

          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                         2023-1118
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. CH-0752-19-0220-I-2.
                 ______________________

       Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
    In response to this court’s show cause order, Daniel
 Asprec Novilla argues in support of this court’s jurisdiction.
 The Department of Agriculture urges dismissal.
      Mr. Novilla appealed his removal from the Department
 to the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting an affirm-
 ative defense that the removal was in retaliation for filing
 an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint alleging
 harassment based on race, national origin, color, and re-
 prisal. The Board’s decision affirming the Department’s
Case: 23-1118     Document: 14      Page: 2    Filed: 03/02/2023

 2                    NOVILLA   v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 removal action became final on October 30, 2020. This
 court received Mr. Novilla’s petition for review of that final
 decision on October 28, 2022.
      We first turn to the Department’s argument that this
 appeal falls outside the jurisdiction that Congress estab-
 lished for this court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703; 28 U.S.C. § 1295.
 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), this court has jurisdiction to
 review a “final order or final decision” of the Board pursu-
 ant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), (d). Section 7703(b)(1) sends
 final Board decisions to us for review except for certain
 “[c]ases of discrimination subject to [5 U.S.C. § 7702],”
 which are instead diverted to district courts.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A); see § 7703(b)(2).
     Although Mr. Novilla raised a claim of discrimination
 before the Board, “a petitioner’s explicit waiver of h[is] dis-
 crimination claims in such a case effectively converts the
 case to a standard appeal of the adverse personnel action—
 providing this court with jurisdiction to review the Board’s
 decision (without considering any discrimination claims).”
 Harris v. SEC, 972 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see
 § 7703(b)(1)(A) (diverting only “[c]ases of discrimination” to
 district court). And here, Mr. Novilla filed a Statement
 Concerning Discrimination indicating that he has aban-
 doned his discrimination claims raised before the Board.
 See ECF No. 12 at 3. *
      Having concluded that this appeal would otherwise be
 subject to our jurisdiction, we turn to timeliness. The
 timely filing of a petition from the Board to this court is a
 jurisdictional requirement and “not subject to equitable
 tolling.” Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016

     *   While Mr. Novilla’s response to the court’s show
 cause order discussed his discrimination allegations, that
 submission was filed before the revised Statement Con-
 cerning Discrimination.
Case: 23-1118     Document: 14      Page: 3    Filed: 03/02/2023

 NOVILLA   v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE                       3

 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A petition for review of a final decision
 “shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice
 of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2) (prohibiting this
 court from extending or reopening the time to file the peti-
 tion for review “unless specifically authorized by law”).
      Here, Mr. Novilla does not dispute that his petition was
 filed outside of this statutory deadline. Rather, Mr. Novilla
 contends that his failure to timely file his petition for re-
 view is excusable because his prior lawyer informed him
 “he would file the petition for review” but in fact “never
 filed it,” ECF No. 1-2 at 1. While this court is sympathetic
 to Mr. Novilla’s situation, we can only consider whether the
 petition was timely filed and cannot excuse a failure to
 timely file based on individual circumstances. Because the
 appeal was untimely, we must dismiss.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                     FOR THE COURT

   March 2, 2023                     /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court