Court Opinion

ID: 9909822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 15:00:54.450101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:10.424128
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2250    Document: 10     Page: 1    Filed: 12/14/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                CASANOVA HAMBRICK,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

         UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-2250
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0752-14-0454-C-3.
                 ______________________

     Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s
 October 3, 2023, order to show cause, we dismiss the peti-
 tion for review as premature.
     An administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protec-
 tion Board issued an initial decision denying Casanova
 Hambrick’s petition for enforcement. Mr. Hambrick there-
 after filed a timely petition seeking further review of that
 decision at the Board, and that petition remains pending.
 On July 31, 2023, this court received what the court has
Case: 23-2250      Document: 10      Page: 2     Filed: 12/14/2023

 2                                             HAMBRICK v. USPS

 construed to be his petition to review the same initial deci-
 sion.
      This court does not yet have authority to decide this
 case. In general, this court only has jurisdiction to review
 final orders or final decisions of the Board, see 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(9); see also Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d
 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and Mr. Hambrick’s pending
 timely petition at the Board renders the initial decision
 non-final for purposes of our jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C.
 § 7701(e)(1)(A) (providing that the initial decision does not
 become final if a party timely petitions the Board for re-
 view); 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 review . . . .”).
     Two potential paths to this court’s future review are
 available. First, Mr. Hambrick may wait to receive a final
 decision from the Board on the merits of his petition, at
 which point Mr. Hambrick may, if necessary, seek this
 court’s review by filing a timely petition here. Alterna-
 tively, Mr. Hambrick may file a motion at the Board to
 withdraw his petition pursuant to the June 2022 policy
 specified on the Board’s website. * Under that policy, the
 Clerk of the Board may grant requests to withdraw a peti-
 tion for review when there is no apparent issue of untime-
 liness with the petition and no other party objects to the
 withdrawal. When the Clerk grants a request to withdraw,
 the order granting the request will be the final order of the
 Board for purposes of seeking our review.

     *    Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Policy Regarding Clerk’s Au-
 thority to Grant Requests to Withdraw Petitions for Re-
 view                                                (2022),
 https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regard-
 ing_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf
 (last visited November 6, 2023).
Case: 23-2250   Document: 10     Page: 3      Filed: 12/14/2023

 HAMBRICK v. USPS                                           3

    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The petition for review is dismissed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                                FOR THE COURT

 December 14, 2023
      Date