Court Opinion

ID: 9892874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 13:00:53.603114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:54.927596
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1885    Document: 21      Page: 1   Filed: 10/25/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                     KELLY JO LEE,
                       Petitioner

                              v.

       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1885
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DE-0432-14-0448-B-2.
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
    In response to this court’s June 22, 2023, order to show
 cause, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) urges
 dismissal of this petition for review as untimely. Kelly Jo
 Lee responds, asking this court to transfer this case to the
 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
     Ms. Lee appealed her removal from the DVA to the
 Merit Systems Protection Board. The administrative judge
 assigned to the case issued an initial decision on November
 29, 2022, affirming the agency’s action. That decision be-
 came final on January 3, 2023, when Ms. Lee failed to file
Case: 23-1885       Document: 21    Page: 2    Filed: 10/25/2023

 2                                                   LEE v. DVA

 a timely petition for review at the Board. On May 10, 2023,
 this court received Ms. Lee’s petition.
       Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition for this
 court’s review of a final decision by the Board must be filed
 “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final
 . . . decision.” This deadline is mandatory and jurisdic-
 tional, and thus cannot be waived or equitably tolled. Fe-
 dora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir.
 2017). Here, the petition was received outside of that ju-
 risdictional deadline. That Ms. Lee’s petition was dated
 March 1, 2023, cannot save the petition because that stat-
 ute “requires actual receipt by the court, not just timely
 mailing.” Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).
     When this court lacks jurisdiction, we may, if in the in-
 terest of justice, transfer an appeal to another court where
 the case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Ms.
 Lee requests transfer to the EEOC, but that is not a court
 identified in § 1631, which “includes the courts of appeals
 and district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
 § 610. Nor do we see any basis for transfer to a United
 States district court. Ms. Lee has not requested such
 transfer, and while Ms. Lee’s papers here allege her re-
 moval was retaliation for filing a grievance over denied
 training requests, see, ECF No. 1-2 at 11, 15, she has not
 alleged that grievance concerned a type of discrimination
 covered under 5 U.S.C. § 7702. In fact, Ms. Lee
 has checked the box on her Statement Concerning Discrim-
 ination that she did not argue that her removal was at-
 tributable to discrimination on the basis of race, color,
 religion, sex, age, national origin or retaliation for pursuing
 Equal Employment Opportunity activity. ECF No. 6 at 1.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Case: 23-1885    Document: 21      Page: 3     Filed: 10/25/2023

 LEE v. DVA                                                  3

     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                        FOR THE COURT

 October 25, 2023                        /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
       Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                         Clerk of Court