Court Opinion

ID: 9371444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 15:00:47.15345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.046870
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2264    Document: 13      Page: 1    Filed: 02/16/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                 VICTOR M. CASILLAS,
                      Petitioner

                              v.

       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                         2022-2264
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-1221-22-0164-W-1.
                 ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

    Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     In response to this court’s December 8, 2022, order to
 show cause, the Department of Veterans Affairs urges dis-
 missal. Victor M. Casillas urges transfer to a district court
 and separately moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-
 peris. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss.
Case: 22-2264     Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 02/16/2023

 2                                             CASILLAS   v. DVA

     Mr. Casillas filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Pro-
 tection Board challenging his removal from the Depart-
 ment of Veterans Affairs. On February 24, 2022, the
 administrative judge assigned to the matter granted Mr.
 Casillas’s request to withdraw the appeal. It is undisputed
 that Mr. Casillas did not file a petition seeking review of
 that decision at the Board and therefore the initial decision
 became the final decision of the Board on March 31, 2022.
 Mr. Casillas filed his petition with this court on September
 19, 2022.
      The timely filing of a petition from a Board decision is
 a jurisdictional requirement “and not subject to equitable
 tolling.” Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016
 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A petition from a final decision “shall be
 filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the fi-
 nal order or decision of the Board.”                5 U.S.C.
 § 7703(b)(1)(A). Here, Mr. Casillas does not dispute that
 he filed his petition for review far outside of this statutory
 deadline. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal,
 as this court can only consider whether the petition was
 timely filed and cannot excuse a failure to timely file based
 on individual circumstances. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2)
 (prohibiting the court from extending or reopening the time
 to petition for review “unless specifically authorized by
 law”).
     We see no basis to transfer this case to federal district
 court, as Mr. Casillas requests. It is true that, where the
 petitioner complains of an adverse personnel action appeal-
 able to the Board and alleges that a basis for the action was
 a listed type of discrimination, the appropriate forum is
 district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1985 (2017). But it does not ap-
 pear that Mr. Casillas brought such a mixed case at the
 Board. And even if he had, Mr. Casillas has not shown that
 he has been adversely affected by the Board’s decision
 granting his own request to withdraw this appeal, such
 that he would be entitled to judicial review. See 5 U.S.C.
Case: 22-2264        Document: 13   Page: 3    Filed: 02/16/2023

 CASILLAS   v. DVA                                           3

 § 7703(a)(1) (providing only that “[a]ny employee . . . ad-
 versely affected or aggrieved by a final order or decision of
 the . . . Board may obtain judicial review” (emphasis
 added)). Under such circumstances, transfer under 28
 U.S.C. § 1631 is not appropriate.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed, and all pend-
 ing motions are denied as moot.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                     FOR THE COURT

 February 16, 2023                   /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court