Court Opinion

ID: 9403529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:36.277855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.831790
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1536    Document: 21     Page: 1    Filed: 06/14/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 TIMOTHY GOODRICH,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-0752-21-0270-I-1.
            -------------------------------------------------

                 TIMOTHY GOODRICH,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1536
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-844E-22-0380-I-1.
                 ______________________

     Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1536    Document: 21      Page: 2    Filed: 06/14/2023

 2                                           GOODRICH   v. ARMY

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     The government responds to the court’s April 5, 2023,
 order urging the court to transfer Timothy Goodrich’s peti-
 tion for review as it relates to Goodrich v. Army, PH-0752-
 21-0270-I-1, and to otherwise dismiss as premature. Mr.
 Goodrich has not filed a response.
      Mr. Goodrich’s petition seeks review of decisions in two
 separate Merit Systems Protection Board proceedings: SF-
 844E-22-0380-I-1 and PH-0752-21-0270-I-1. In SF-844E-
 22-0380-I-1, the administrative judge issued an initial de-
 cision affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s de-
 nial of disability retirement. In PH-0752-21-0270-I-1, the
 administrative judge’s initial decision affirmed Mr.
 Goodrich’s removal from the Department of the Army. Mr.
 Goodrich filed timely petitions for review at the Board in
 both matters, and those petitions remain pending. Mr.
 Goodrich’s filings at this court indicate that he raised
 claims of discrimination in the removal action that he does
 not wish to abandon. See ECF No. 8 at 1, 3.
     We lack jurisdiction to review a “mixed case” from the
 Board—one in which a federal employee (1) complains of
 having suffered a serious adverse personnel action appeal-
 able to the Board and (2) attributes the adverse action, in
 whole or in part, to bias prohibited by certain federal anti-
 discrimination laws. See Harris v. SEC, 972 F.3d 1307,
 1317–18 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582
 U.S. 420, 426 (2017) (holding that federal district court is
 the proper forum for review of mixed cases from the Board);
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
     In PH-0752-21-0270-I-1, we agree with the government
 that Mr. Goodrich sought the Board’s review of an adverse
 employment action within the Board’s jurisdiction (re-
 moval) on the basis that it was discriminatory. His case
 therefore belongs in federal district court. We transfer that
Case: 23-1536     Document: 21      Page: 3     Filed: 06/14/2023

 GOODRICH   v. ARMY                                            3

 matter to the United States District Court for the Western
 District of Washington where he was employed. See 5
 U.S.C. § 7702(e)(1)(B) (allowing an employee in certain cir-
 cumstances to file a civil action if “there is no judicially re-
 viewable action” after “the 120th day following the filing of
 an appeal with the Board”); Butler v. West, 164 F.3d 634,
 640 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that a district court had juris-
 diction under similar circumstances).
     We do not transfer but instead dismiss the petition as
 to the administrative judge’s initial decision in SF-844E-
 22-0380-I-1. Because there is no indication that matter is
 a mixed case, we would have jurisdiction except the Board
 has not yet issued a “final decision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9),
 given Mr. Goodrich’s pending timely petition with the
 Board. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a) (“The initial decision will
 not become the Board’s final decision if within the time
 limit for filing . . . any party files a petition for re-
 view . . . .”). We therefore dismiss that matter as prema-
 ture. *

     *    There are two potential paths to this court’s ulti-
 mate review of a final decision in SF-844E-22-0380-I-1.
 Mr. Goodrich may wait for a final determination from the
 full Board on his petition for Board review, at which point
 Mr. Goodrich may seek this court’s review by filing a timely
 petition for review with this court. Alternatively, Mr.
 Goodrich may file a motion at the Board to withdraw his
 petition pursuant to the June 2022 policy specified on the
 Board’s     website.       See    https://www.mspb.gov/ap-
 peals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Peti-
 tion_for_Review_1515773.pdf (last visited May 25, 2023).
 Under that policy, the Clerk of the Board may grant re-
 quests to withdraw a petition for review when there is no
 apparent issue of untimeliness of the petition and no other
 party objects to the withdrawal. When the Clerk grants a
Case: 23-1536    Document: 21     Page: 4    Filed: 06/14/2023

 4                                          GOODRICH   v. ARMY

     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The court transfers the petition as applied to PH-
 0752-21-0270-I-1 and all transmittals to the United States
 District Court for the Western District of Washington pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and dismisses the petition as to
 SF-844E-22-0380-I-1.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to the dis-
 missed matter.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 June 14, 2023                        /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
    Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                      Acting Clerk of Court

 request to withdraw, the order granting the request will be
 the final order of the Board for purposes of obtaining judi-
 cial review.