Court Opinion

ID: 9895501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 16:02:40.83985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:53.462163
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1231   Document: 43     Page: 1    Filed: 11/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  JOSEPH C. PAYNE,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-1231
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-4324-22-0599-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: November 7, 2023
                 ______________________

    JOSEPH C. PAYNE, Millsboro, DE, pro se.

     CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of General Counsel, United
 States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC,
 for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON JANE BOYLE,
 KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH.
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1231     Document: 43     Page: 2    Filed: 11/07/2023

 2                                              PAYNE v. MSPB

 PER CURIAM.
     Joseph Payne appeals from a decision of the United
 States Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dis-
 missing his appeal in the interest of adjudicatory efficiency.
 Payne v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DC-4324-22-0599-I-1,
 2022 WL 9464682 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 14, 2022) (“Decision”);
 R.A. 1 1–12. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      On September 21, 2021, Payne filed an appeal at the
 Board challenging the United States Postal Service’s fail-
 ure to promote him to a Vehicle Operations and Mainte-
 nance Assistant (“VOMA”) position in 2008. Payne v. U.S.
 Postal Serv., No. PH-3443-21-0363-I-1, 2022 WL 909504
 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 25, 2022); R.A. 15–25. The administrative
 judge assigned to that first appeal determined that Payne
 intended to raise claims under the Veterans Employment
 Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”) and the Uniformed
 Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of
 1994 (“USERRA”). R.A. 17. The administrative judge dis-
 missed the VEOA claim as untimely and suspended the
 case for discovery on the USERRA claim. Id. While that
 case was suspended, Payne filed an appeal in this court.
 Payne v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 2022-1419, 2022 WL
 1197334, *1 (Fed. Cir. 2022). That appeal was dismissed
 for lack of jurisdiction because the USERRA claim was still
 pending, and no decision had yet issued. Id. The adminis-
 trative judge later issued an initial decision dismissing the
 USERRA claim on the basis of laches. R.A. 18–19. Payne
 then petitioned for review by the full Board. Decision, R.A.
 3.
    On August 22, 2022, while the petition for review was
 pending, Payne filed a second appeal at the Board. Id.,
 R.A. 1. The administrative judge assigned to the second

     1   R.A. refers to the Respondent’s Appendix.
Case: 23-1231     Document: 43     Page: 3    Filed: 11/07/2023

 PAYNE v. MSPB                                               3

 appeal reviewed Payne’s filings and determined that he
 was asserting the same claims based on the same facts as
 in the first Board appeal. Id., R.A. 2. The administrative
 judge ordered Payne to show cause why the second appeal
 should not be dismissed for adjudicatory efficiency based
 on the pending petition for review of the first Board appeal.
 Id., R.A. 3. The administrative judge found Payne’s subse-
 quent filings to be unresponsive and dismissed the second
 appeal. Id., R.A. 3–4.
      Payne did not file a petition for review of his second
 appeal to the Board; the administrative judge’s initial de-
 cision thus became the final decision of the Board on No-
 vember 18, 2022. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. Payne timely
 appealed the decision dismissing his second appeal to the
 Board for adjudicatory efficiency, and we have jurisdiction
 under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
     A Board decision may only be set aside if it is “(1) arbi-
 trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
 quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
 (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”            5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(c). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing
 error in the Board’s decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans
 Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
      Payne does not argue that his second appeal to the
 Board presented different claims from the first and was
 therefore wrongly dismissed for adjudicatory efficiency. In-
 deed, none of his hundreds of pages of appendix materials
 address that basis of dismissal. Instead, he presents argu-
 ments relating to the merits of his claim: his non-selection
 for a VOMA position by the United States Postal Service in
 2008. Pet. Br. 2. Payne argues that it was customary at
 the post office where he worked to award the VOMA posi-
 tion to the most experienced applicant and that at the time
 of his non-selection he was the most experienced applicant
Case: 23-1231    Document: 43      Page: 4   Filed: 11/07/2023

 4                                             PAYNE v. MSPB

 because he had performed the most hours of vehicle
 maintenance. Id. at 2–4. He therefore requests that this
 court provide both back pay from 2008 to his retirement in
 2015, as well as elevated post-retirement pay. Id. at 3. But
 none of these arguments addresses the Board’s purported
 error under review—dismissal on the basis of adjudicatory
 efficiency—and our review is generally limited to the
 grounds upon which the record discloses that the Board’s
 action was based. Killip v. Off. of Personnel Mgt., 991 F.2d
 1564, 1568–69 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing SEC v. Chenery
 Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)).
     Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the
 administrative judge did not err in finding that Payne
 raised the same claim based on the same facts in the first
 Board appeal. Payne’s petition for review of the first ap-
 peal was still pending when the administrative judge dis-
 missed the second appeal. See Decision, R.A. 1–12; Payne
 v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. PH-3443-21-0363-I-1, 2023 WL
 4359452 (M.S.P.B. July 5, 2023). When an appellant files
 an appeal with the Board that presents the same claims as
 an earlier appeal and the earlier appeal remains pending
 before the full Board, an administrative judge does not vi-
 olate the law in dismissing the later appeal in the interest
 of adjudicatory efficiency. We see no reason to draw a dif-
 ferent conclusion here.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Payne’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
 firm.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.