Court Opinion

ID: 9964289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 17:00:43.595478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.974291
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

MICHAEL A. ARIZMENDI,                           DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        DC-3330-19-0357-I-1

             v.

COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER                     DATE: April 26, 2024
  SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR DC,
             Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Steven L. Herrick , Esquire, San Diego, California, for the appellant.

      Donald Tanguilig , Marvelle Butler , Esquire, and Tiffany Butler , Esquire,
        Washington, D.C., 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dismissed as withdrawn his appeal alleging a violation of his rights under the
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. Generally, we grant petitions
such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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 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).
      An appellant’s withdrawal of a Board appeal is an act of finality which
removes the appeal from the Board’s jurisdiction. Lincoln v. U.S. Postal Service,
113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶ 7 (2010). A voluntary withdrawal must be clear, decisive,
and unequivocal. Id. The Board will generally grant a motion to withdraw an
appeal unless the nonmoving party would suffer a clear legal prejudice. Kravitz
v. Office of Personnel Management, 75 M.S.P.R. 44, 46-47 (1997). Because an
appellant’s withdrawal of an appeal is generally an act of finality, in the absence
of unusual circumstances, such as if the appellant received misinformation, was
under mental distress at the time of withdrawal, or presents new and material
evidence on review, the Board will not reinstate an appeal once it has been
withdrawn merely because the appellant has had a change of mind and now
wishes to proceed before the Board. Lincoln, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶¶ 8-9; Auyong
v. Department of the Navy, 97 M.S.P.R. 267, ¶ 4 (2004).
      The appellant withdrew his appeal by submitting a filing to the Board,
through his legal counsel, titled “Notice of Withdrawal and Proposed Order,”
which stated that the appellant “hereby withdraws this Appeal.” Initial Appeal
File (IAF), Tab 15 at 4. The filing also included a proposed order dismissing the
                                                                                      3

appeal as withdrawn. Id. at 6. In his petition for review, the appellant does not
argue that he withdrew his appeal due to misinformation or mental duress, nor
does he request that his appeal be reinstated due to new and material evidence.
Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Instead, he concedes that he withdrew his
appeal “at the urging of” his legal counsel, but asserts that he has “discovered
omissions of important information which are germane to the specifics of [his]
case,” and makes a number of arguments regarding the merits of his appeal.
Id. at 4-8.
        The appellant’s filing stating that he “hereby withdraws this Appeal,” is
clear, decisive, and unequivocal, and his request to reinstate his appeal because
he has had an apparent change of mind does not warrant reinstatement in this
case.     See Lincoln, 113 M.S.P.R. 486, ¶¶ 8-9; Auyong, 97 M.S.P.R. 267, ¶ 4
(2004).       Additionally, to whatever extent the appellant is alleging that his
attorney erred in withdrawing his appeal, it is well settled that an appellant is
responsible for the errors of his chosen representative. See Pacilli v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 526, ¶ 13, aff’d sub nom. Pacilli v. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 404 F. App’x 466 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Sofio v. Internal
Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981). Accordingly, we discern no reason
to disturb the initial decision, and we deny the petition for review and affirm the
initial decision dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. 2

2
  On review, the appellant submits a number of documents, some of which were
included in the record below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 9-19. We have reviewed all of the
documents, and we find that the appellant has not shown that any of the information he
has provided for the first time on review is material, so we have not considered it.
See Okello v. Office of Personnel Management, 112 M.S.P.R. 563, ¶ 10 (2009) (noting
that under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d), the Board will not consider evidence submitted for
the first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it is both new and
material). The agency has also provided a number of documents with its response to the
petition for review, all of which were included in the record below, and so we also have
not considered them. PFR File, Tab 3 at 14-133; IAF, Tab 8 at 13-132; see id.; Meier v.
Department of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256 (1980) (explaining that evidence that is
already a part of the record is not new).
                                                                                          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.