Court Opinion

ID: 9373769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:14.711002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.078752
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSE W. LINARES-ROSADO,                          DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                         NY-4324-08-0348-B-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                    DATE: April 14, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jose W. Linares-Rosado, Luguillo, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Krista M. Irons, Esquire, New York, New York, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal alleging a violation of the
     Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
     (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301‑4335) (USERRA). For the reasons

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     set forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely
     filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2        The appellant filed an appeal with the Board challenging the U.S. Postal
     Service’s decision to rescind a conditional job offer after finding him medically
     unsuitable for the position of City Carrier.       Linares-Rosado v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 599, ¶ 2 (2009). The regional office therein docketed the
     appeal under three separate docket numbers based on the alleged wrongdoing:
     (1) MSPB    Docket    No.   NY-3443-08-0345-I-1       (challenging   the   agency’s
     conclusion that the appellant was medically unsuitable for the position);
     (2) MSPB Docket No. NY-3330-08-0346-I-1 (challenging the agency’s decision
     under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) ); and (3) the
     instant appeal, MSPB Docket No. NY-4324-08-0348-I-1 (challenging the
     agency’s action under USERRA).             Id., ¶ 1 n.1.       The administrative
     judge summarily dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn based upon a
     settlement agreement. Linares-Rosado v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No.
     NY-4324-08-0348-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5, Initial Decision at 1-2;
     Linares-Rosado, 112 M.S.P.R. 599, ¶ 2.       The Board subsequently vacated the
     initial decisions and remanded the appeals separately.     Linares-Rosado v. U.S.
     Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-4324-08-0348-B-1, Remand File (RF), Tab
     1; see Linares - Rosado, 112 M.S.P.R. 599, ¶ 17.
¶3        On remand, the administrative judge informed the appellant of how to
     establish jurisdiction over his USERRA appeal. RF, Tab 5 at 2 -4. After the
     parties responded on the jurisdictional issue, the administrative judge issued
     an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdicti on. RF, Tabs 6-7,
     Tab 9, Remand Initial Decision (RID) at 1-2.       Specifically, the administrative
     judge found that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that his performance
     of duty in a uniformed service was a substantial or motivating factor in the loss of
                                                                                         3

     a benefit of employment. RID at 5-6. The remand initial decision was dated
     February 2, 2010, and gave a finality date of March 9, 2010.           RID at 1, 6.
     On March 4, 2010, the administrative judge issued an Erratum correcting the date
     of issuance to March 2, 2010, and informing the appellant that the initial decision
     would become final on April 6, 2010, unless a petition for review was filed by
     that date. RF, Tab 10.
¶4        The appellant filed a petition for          review of the initial decision
     on June 12, 2021.   Linares-Rosado v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No.
     NY-4324-08-0348-B-1, Remand Petition for Review (RPFR) File, Tab 3. 2 The
     agency has responded to his petition for review, and the appellant has replie d to
     its response. RPFR File, Tabs 6, 9.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant’s petition for review is untimely filed without good cause shown
     for the delay in filing.
¶5        A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the date of issuance
     of the initial decision or, if the petitioner shows that the initial decision was
     received more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the date
     the petitioner received the initial decision.          Hawley v. Social Security
     Administration, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4 (2008); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
     The appellant claims that he did not receive any communications from the agency
     or the administrative judge after December 28, 2009. RPFR File, Tab 3 at 21.
     The record reflects that the New York Field Office served the initial decision on

     2
       The appellant initially filed a submission on May 4, 2021. RPFR, Tab 1. After the
     Acting Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that his submission did not comply
     with the Board’s regulations and would not be processed as a petition for review , he
     submitted a perfected petition for review. RPFR File, Tab 2 at 1-2, Tab 3. Thereafter,
     the Acting Clerk of the Board issued a notice properly acknowledging June 12, 2021, as
     the filing date of the appellant’s petition for review. RPFR, Tab 4 ; see Robinson v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R. 325, 328 (addressing the timeliness of
     the appellant’s perfected petition for review), aff’d, 5 F.3d 1505 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
                                                                                       4

     the appellant by U.S. mail on March 2, 2010.           RF, Tab 10. 3   Further, the
     appellant’s pleading addressing the timeliness of his petition for review explicitly
     describes the administrative judge’s March 4, 2010 Erratum and its reference to
     the February 2, 2010 initial decision and the April 6, 2010 finality date. RPFR,
     Tab 3 at 20-21. In these circumstances, we find that the appellant has failed to
     rebut the presumption of due delivery and receipt of the initial decision. See Blue
     v. U.S. Postal Service, 65 M.S.P.R. 370, 374-75 (1994), aff’d, 65 F.3d 188 (Fed.
     Cir. 1995) (Table). We find that, to be timely, the appellant’s petition for review
     should have been filed by April 6, 2010.        RF, Tab 11.    The appellant filed
     his petition for review on June 12, 2021. RPFR File, Tab 1 at 2. Accordingly,
     his petition for review is untimely filed by over 11 years.
¶6         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review upon
     a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. Hawley, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4;
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party
     must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the
     particular circumstances of the case.         Hawley, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4.
     To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider
     the length of the delay, the reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due
     diligence, whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence
     of the existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to
     comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which
     similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his petition.
     Id.

     3
       The certificate of service reflects that it was mailed to the same address as the
     administrative judge’s jurisdictional order, which the appellant received. RF, Tab 5
     at 9, Tab 6 at 1, Tab 10 at 2. It is also the same address the appellant used on
     his petition for review. RPFR File, Tab 3 at 26.
                                                                                      5

¶7         The appellant argues that good cause exists for his untimely filed petition
     for review because he has been waiting for the agency representative to submit all
     of the evidence and documents used in his appeal.       RPFR File, Tab 3 at 1-4.
     He further asserts that he has been requesting that the administrative judge order
     the agency to present such evidence and documents, and he has been waiting on
     a response from the administrative judge.    Id. at 2, 4. Finally, he claims that
     he has been requesting that the administrative judge exclude the agency’s former
     representative 4 from the case due to an alleged conflict of interest, and he has
     similarly been waiting on a response from the administrative judge on this issue.
     Id. at 2.   We find that he has failed to present good cause for waiver of the
     deadline to file.
¶8         Although the appellant is pro se, his over 11-year delay in filing is lengthy
     and militates against waiving the filing deadline. See Whitworth v. Department of
     the Treasury, 106 M.S.P.R. 401, ¶ 7 (2007), aff’d, 268 F. App’x 962 (Fed. Cir.
     2008). Furthermore, his assertion that he was waiting on documents from the
     agency and responses from the administrative judge do not establish good cause
     for a waiver of the filing deadline. Indeed, he has not explained his attempts to
     obtain these documents or why he could not have submitted his petition for
     review without them.        See Schuringa v. Department of the Treasury,
     106 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 8 (2007); Benroth v. Department of the Army, 79 M.S.P.R. 15,
     ¶ 6 (1998).    Of note, the record does not contain any discovery requests or
     motions seeking to compel discovery by the appellant.       Moreover, despite the
     appellant’s claims to the contrary, the agency did respond with evidence and
     argument on the USERRA jurisdictional issue.          RF, Tab 7.      Nonetheless,
     regardless of whether the appellant submitted any requests for evidence, he has

     4
       On June 22, 2021, the agency deactivated that representative and designated a new
     agency representative in this appeal. RPFR File, Tab 5.
                                                                                          6

     not demonstrated how his alleged requests, or the absence of any responses,
     affected his ability to timely file his petition for review.            See Benroth,
     79 M.S.P.R. 15, ¶ 6 (finding no good cause when an appellant failed to explain
     why he could not have timely submitted a petition for review without certain
     documents). Even if the agency improperly failed to submit evidence and the
     administrative judge failed to respond to the appellant’s requests, he has not
     explained how this prevented him from raising these issues followin g issuance of
     the initial decision in a timely petition for review.        We have reviewed the
     appellant’s remaining arguments, many of which pertain to the merits of the
     appeal and alleged error by the administrative judge; however, we find that the
     appellant has not explained how he was prevented from raising any of these
     arguments in a timely petition for review. We conclude that the appellant did not
     exercise due diligence or ordinary prudence as would excuse his substantial,
     11-year delay.
¶9            Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed without
     good cause shown. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection
     Board regarding the timeliness of the petition for review. The initial decision
     remains the final decision of the Board regarding the USERRA jurisdictional
     issue.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 5
              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

     5
       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.
                                                                                        7

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.
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.
                                                                                     8

      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
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
                                                                                  9

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

      (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
                                                                                     10

competent jurisdiction. 6   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.
      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.

6
   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.
                                                                       11

      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.