Court Opinion

ID: 9890504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 14:00:47.182244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:38.625901
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2046   Document: 33     Page: 1   Filed: 10/13/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  MARTIN AKERMAN,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-2046
                 ______________________

      Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in Nos. DC-0752-23-0457-I-1 and DC-0752-23-0457-
 S-1.
                   ______________________

                     ON MOTION
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     After consideration of the parties’ responses to this
 court’s order directing them to show cause whether Martin
Case: 23-2046    Document: 33     Page: 2    Filed: 10/13/2023

 2                                          AKERMAN v. MSPB

 Akerman’s petition for review should be dismissed for lack
 of jurisdiction, we dismiss. *
     The court received Mr. Akerman’s petition for review
 identifying two Merit Systems Protection Board docket
 numbers—DC-0752-23-0457-I-1 and DC-0752-23-0457-S-
 1—and specifically requesting review of a “Third Order”
 entered May 22, 2023. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Attached to that
 petition is a May 22, 2023, decision from the administrative
 judge in DC-0752-23-0457-I-1 entitled “Third Order,”
 which denies Mr. Akerman’s motion for “Certification of In-
 terlocutory Appeal” to the Board.
      The court directed the parties to show cause because
 while 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) provides the court with juris-
 diction over “an appeal from a final order or final decision
 of the Merit Systems Protection Board,” the administrative
 judge’s denial of Mr. Akerman’s third request for an inter-
 locutory appeal to the Board does not “end[] the litigation
 on the merits and leave[] 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). Thus, it is
 not a “final” order or decision that can be immediately ap-
 pealed to this court. Mr. Akerman asserts that the order is
 nonetheless appealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Indus-
 trial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), but Cohen’s collat-
 eral order doctrine is for only a “small class of collateral
 rulings that,” among other things, “resolve important ques-
 tions separate from the merits,” Kaplan v. Conyers, 733
 F.3d 1148, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Here, the
 interlocutory order is not such an order; rather,

     *   Mr. Akerman appears to seek reconsideration of
 the court’s July 31, 2023, order denying his request to con-
 solidate this case with Appeal No. 2023-2216 (concerning
 Board No. DC-3443-22-0639-I-1), but that request is denied
 as moot given this dismissal. Mr. Akerman’s request to
 modify the caption is also denied.
Case: 23-2046    Document: 33     Page: 3      Filed: 10/13/2023

 AKERMAN v. MSPB                                             3

 Mr. Akerman appears to simply want expedited review of
 the “underlying . . . issues,” ECF No. 20 at 2, which is in-
 sufficient.
     Moreover, we note that in DC-0752-23-0457-I-1, the ad-
 ministrative judge has since issued an initial decision, but
 Mr. Akerman’s petition here does not challenge that initial
 decision, and, in any event, that decision remains non-final
 because Mr. Akerman filed a timely petition for review
 with the Board, such that our review of that decision is
 premature. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a); Weed, 571 F.3d at
 1361–63. Lastly, we note that Mr. Akerman’s submissions
 here have not reasonably identified any decision, final or
 otherwise, in DC-0752-23-0457-S-1 for this court to review.
 We therefore dismiss.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
     (3) All pending motions are denied.
                                         FOR THE COURT

  October 13, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
       Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                         Clerk of Court