Court Opinion

ID: 9839531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:10.562005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:58.585317
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1248   Document: 26     Page: 1   Filed: 08/11/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                EVELYN A. ANDERSON,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-1248
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-0752-13-0106-I-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: August 11, 2023
                 ______________________

    EVELYN A. ANDERSON, Grand Prairie, TX, pro se.

     ALLISON JANE BOYLE, Office of General Counsel,
 United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent.
                   ______________________

    Before PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1248    Document: 26      Page: 2    Filed: 08/11/2023

 2                                           ANDERSON v. MSPB

     Evelyn Anderson appeals a final order of the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board (Board) dismissing her petition as
 untimely. Anderson v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. DA-0752-13-
 0106-I-1, 2022 WL 16640824, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 2, 2022)
 (Final Order). Because the Board did not abuse its discre-
 tion in considering the petition to be untimely filed, we af-
 firm.
                      BACKGROUND
      On October 31, 2012, the Department of the Navy
 (Navy) removed Ms. Anderson from her position as a com-
 munications clerk for making an inappropriate comment in
 the workplace. Anderson v. Navy, No. DA-0752-13-0106-I-
 1, 2013 WL 5917683 (Mar. 28, 2013) (Initial Decision).
 Ms. Anderson appealed the Navy’s removal to the Board,
 and on March 28, 2013, the Board issued an initial decision
 affirming the removal. Id. The Board indicated that this
 initial removal decision would become final unless Ms. An-
 derson were to file a petition for review by May 2, 2013.
 Final Order, 2022 WL 16640824, at *1.
     Over four years later, on April 11, 2017, Ms. Anderson
 petitioned the Board for review of its initial decision. Id.
 The Board notified Ms. Anderson that her petition was un-
 timely filed and requested her to show good cause for the
 delay. Id. Ms. Anderson’s motion explained that her inex-
 perience with the Board’s process, her pro se status, and
 her mounting personal difficulties—including the loss of
 family members, the loss of a close friend, and a compli-
 cated divorce—contributed to her delay in filing the peti-
 tion. Id.
      In its final order responding to Ms. Anderson’s petition
 and motion, the Board dismissed the petition as untimely
 filed without good cause. Id. Ms. Anderson timely ap-
 pealed this final order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
Case: 23-1248     Document: 26     Page: 3    Filed: 08/11/2023

 ANDERSON v. MSPB                                            3

                        DISCUSSION
      The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition
 upon a showing of good cause for the delay. 5 C.F.R.
 § 1201.114(g). To show good cause, the petitioner must es-
 tablish that she “exercised diligence or ordinary prudence
 under the particular circumstances of the case.” Olivares
 v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 17 F.3d 386, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
 (citation omitted). “The [Board] has broad discretion to
 control its own docket and we will not substitute our judg-
 ment for that of the [B]oard in this regard.” Id. Indeed, we
 must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find it “(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); see Brenner v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 990 F.3d
 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
      We do not believe the Board abused its discretion in
 finding Ms. Anderson’s petition untimely filed without
 good cause. There is no dispute that Ms. Anderson’s peti-
 tion was untimely filed. And while we acknowledge
 Ms. Anderson’s personal difficulties leading up to the
 Board’s initial decision, her pro se status, and her inexpe-
 rience with the Board’s procedures, the Board’s final order
 considered each of these factors and concluded that they
 did not amount to a showing of good cause because (1) the
 initial decision contained “clear and unambiguous” and
 “straightforward instructions” for filing a petition, (2) her
 personal difficulties, while unfortunate, did not constitute
 good cause, and (3) Ms. Anderson had not explained why
 her circumstances resulted in a four-year delay between
 the initial decision and her petition for review. Final Or-
 der, 2022 WL 16640824, at *1–2. We thus find no abuse of
 discretion in the Board’s dismissal of the petition.
     Ms. Anderson does not credibly challenge the Board’s
 dismissal in its final order. Instead, she focuses her appeal
Case: 23-1248    Document: 26      Page: 4    Filed: 08/11/2023

 4                                           ANDERSON v. MSPB

 arguments on challenging the merits of the Board’s initial
 removal decision, alleging the Board committed both fac-
 tual and legal error in affirming her removal from the
 Navy. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2–3; Appellant’s Infor-
 mal Reply at 1–2. But to have timely appealed this initial
 decision to this court, Ms. Anderson should have filed the
 appeal within 60 days after the initial decision became fi-
 nal on May 2, 2013. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). Because
 Ms. Anderson did not timely appeal the Board’s decision,
 her attacks on the merits of that decision lie beyond the
 scope of the present appeal. See Olivares, 17 F.3d at 388
 (“[Appellant] did not timely appeal to this court the final
 decision of the [B]oard that affirmed the [agency] deci-
 sion. . . . Accordingly, we may not review that decision and
 it remains the final decision of the [B]oard.”).
                        CONCLUSION
    We have considered Ms. Anderson’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above,
 we affirm the Board’s dismissal of Ms. Anderson’s petition.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.