Court Opinion

ID: 9780906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 07:00:47.733905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:28.123336
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LESTER A. WINTERS,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        CH-0845-17-0382-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: August 29, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Lester A. Winters, Miamisburg, Ohio, pro se.

           Karla W. Yeakle, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his appeal for failure to prosecute. For the reasons discussed below,
     we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     REMAND the case to the regional office for further adjudication in accordance
     with this Remand Order.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         On May 30, 2017, the appellant filed a Board appeal of the final decision of
     the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in a Federal Employees’ Retirement
     System annuity overpayment case. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1. He did not
     request a hearing. Id. at 2. On June 7, 2017, the administrative judge issued an
     order, directing the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference on
     June 21, 2017. IAF, Tab 4 at 1.
¶3         However, on June 15, 2017, prior to the date of the scheduled status
     conference, OPM filed a motion in which it requested a 30 -day extension to
     submit its case file, describing this as a request for a 30-day suspension of the
     case. IAF, Tab 5. According to the appellant, an employee of ei ther OPM or the
     Merit Systems Protection Board (it is not entirely clear) notified him by telephone
     that same day that the appeal was being suspended for 30 days.         Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. The appellant states that he asked whether the
     scheduled status conference was being postponed, and the employee told him that
     it was. Id.
¶4         Nevertheless, the administrative judge convened the status conference on
     June 21, 2017, as scheduled. OPM appeared for it, but the appellant did not.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 1. The administrative judge issued an order rescheduling the status
     conference for June 23, 2017, reminding the appellant of the need to appear for
     the status conference, and notifying him of the possibility of sanctions, up to and
     including dismissal of the appeal, if he failed to appear. Id. On June 23, 2017,
     the appellant failed to appear at the rescheduled status conference, so on June 26,
     2017, the administrative judge issued another order, rescheduling the status
     conference for June 29, 2017, and warning the appellant that his failure to appear
     at that conference would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. IAF, Tab 8.
                                                                                          3

     The appellant again failed to appear, and on July 10, 2017, the administrative
     judge dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. IAF, Tab 9, Tab 10, Initial
     Decision.
¶5         The appellant has filed a petition for review, explaining the circumstances
     of his failure to appear at any of the three scheduled status conferences. PFR
     File, Tab 1. OPM has not filed a response.

                                          ANALYSIS
¶6         An administrative judge may impose sanctions upon a party as necessary to
     serve the ends of justice.    5 C.F.R. § 1201.43.     One sanction available for an
     appellant’s failure to prosecute his appeal is dismissal with prejudice. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.43(b).    Dismissal for failure to prosecute is an extreme sanctio n and
     should be reserved for situations where an appellant has failed to respond to
     multiple orders or has otherwise exhibited bad faith or intent to abandon his
     appeal.     Chandler v. Department of the Navy, 87 M.S.P.R. 369, ¶ 6 (2000).
     Further, an appellant should normally receive explicit warning before an
     administrative judge resorts to this sanction. See Wiggins v. Department of the
     Air Force, 113 M.S.P.R. 443, ¶ 13 (2010).
¶7         In this case, we find that the appellant’s failure to appear for the multiple
     status conferences was the result of a miscommunication and constituted, at most,
     excusable neglect. 2     According to the appellant’s sworn and uncontested
     statement on review, he stopped monitoring his appeal for 30 days beginning
     June 15, 2017, and did not appear at the June 21, 2017 status conference because
     he had been informed that the appeal was being suspended and the status
     conference postponed. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. Therefore, the appellant did not

     2
      OPM was not entirely clear in its motion whether it was requesting a filing extension,
     a case processing suspension, or both. IAF, Tab 5 at 1. On June 21, 2017, the
     administrative judge granted OPM an extension but did not suspend case processing.
     IAF, Tab 7 at 1. This, however, was after the appellant had already stopped monitoring
     his appeal based on the June 15, 2017 telephone conversation.
                                                                                     4

     receive any of the administrative judge’s multiple orders and warnings, all of
     which were issued during that 30-day period.         PFR File, Tab 1 at 4; IAF,
     Tabs 7-9. When the 30-day period ended, on July 15, 2017, the appellant checked
     his e-Appeal Online repository, saw that his appeal had been dismissed, and
     immediately filed a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 1.
¶8        Under these circumstances, we find that it would not serve the ends of
     justice to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, this pro se appellant’s retirement
     benefits appeal. To be clear, we find nothing improper about the administrative
     judge’s handling of this case or his decision to dismiss the appeal based on the
     facts he knew at the time.     Had the administrative judge been aware of the
     circumstances surrounding the appellant’s failure to respond to his orders, we do
     not think that he would have imposed this sanction in the first place.

                                          ORDER
¶9        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the regional office
     for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

     FOR THE BOARD:                            /s/ for
                                               Jennifer Everling
                                               Acting Clerk of the Board
     Washington, D.C.