Court Opinion

ID: 9960098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:00:43.941644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.673259
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

    JOSH HICKSON,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                     Appellant,                  AT-3443-19-0695-I-1

              v.

    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                DATE: April 12, 2024
                  Agency.

         THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

       William Johnson , West Columbia, South Carolina, for the appellant.

       Brandy A. Osimokun , Esquire, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

       The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his appeal of a proposed removal for lack of jurisdiction without
holding the requested hearing. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only
in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings
of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of
statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or
the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an
abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or
new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the
petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After
fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision,
which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
      The appellant filed the instant appeal upon receipt of the agency’s
proposal to remove him.       Hickson v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No.
AT-3443-19-0695-I-1,       Initial   Appeal     File   (IAF),    Tab     1   at   4,   6.
The administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without
holding the requested hearing because the Board lacks jurisdiction over proposed
removals and the appellant was on administrative leave for some time. 1
IAF, Tab 8, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-3. On petition for review, the appellant
does not challenge the administrative judge’s finding but instead offers a defense
to the allegations made against him in the proposal notice and attaches a record
from the Department of Veterans Affairs listing his service-connected disabilities.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 2. The agency has filed a response opposing
the petition. PFR File, Tab 4.

1
  Although the proposal notice indicated that the appellant would be in a pay status for
30 days, the appellant asserted below that he had not been paid since August 30, 2019.
IAF, Tab 7 at 4. The record reflects that the appellant filed a separate appeal regarding
a constructive suspension, which the administrative judge dismissed as moot because,
during the pendency of that appeal, the agency provided evidence that it had paid the
appellant until the date of his removal, and he did not dispute that he had received that
payment. Hickson v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-3443-19-0788-I-1,
Initial Decision (Nov. 18, 2019). No petition for review of that initial decision has been
filed.
                                                                                       3

      The Board will normally only consider evidence submitted for the first time
on review upon a showing that it was previously unavailable despite the
petitioner’s due diligence. See Banks v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R.
268, 271 (1980); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Here, the appellant has not explained
why he could not have previously submitted the document attached on review.
In any event, the document does not provide a basis for granting the petition for
review because the appellant has not shown that it is of sufficient weight to
warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision. Russo v. Veterans
Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980).
      Indeed, the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it
has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation. Maddox v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985).          Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512
and 7513(d), the Board has jurisdiction over, among other actions, “a removal.”
Lethridge    v.   U.S.   Postal    Service,    99   M.S.P.R.     675,   ¶   8    (2005).
However, “[b]ecause mere proposals to remove are not listed in § 7512, they are
not appealable adverse actions in themselves and the Board has no jurisdiction
over them.” Cruz v. Department of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1243 (Fed. Cir.
1991). For the reasons stated in the initial decision, we agree that the Board lacks
jurisdiction over this appeal. 2

2
  After the issuance of the initial decision in the instant appeal, the agency issued the
appellant a decision notice effecting his removal. The appellant thereafter separately
appealed that action, and an initial decision was issued. Hickson v. U.S. Postal Service,
MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-20-0066-I-1, Initial Decision (Dec. 19, 2019). Thereafter,
the appellant filed a petition for review; however, the Clerk of the Board later granted
the appellant’s request to withdraw his petition for review, and that matter is now
closed.
                                                                                          4

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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
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:

3
  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.
                                                                                    5

                             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.

      (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. 420 (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
                                                                                  6

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
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
                                                                                      7

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
competent jurisdiction. 4   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.

4
   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.
                                                                        8

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.