Court Opinion

ID: 9947329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 17:00:41.163092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:21.427590
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DANIEL K. LOCKHART,                             DOCKET NUMBER
              Appellant,                        AT-1221-18-0364-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,                          DATE: March 1, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Daniel K. Lockhart , Saint Petersburg, Florida, pro se.

      John D. Norquist , Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
denied his request for corrective action in his individual right of action appeal.
On petition for review, he argues that he is entitled to corrective action because
he proved that the agency retaliated against him for making protected disclosures
and the agency did not show it would have removed him absent his protected
disclosures. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4-17. He also raises claims
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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

that may be construed as alleging that he was retaliated against for engaging in
protected activity, that he was retaliated against for filing a complaint with the
agency’s Office of Inspector General, that he was perceived as a whistleblower,
and that he disobeyed an “illegal order,” claims that were not at issue on appeal
and were not addressed in the initial decision. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5, 14; Initial
Appeal File (IAF), Tab 29 at 3-5, Tab 39, Initial Decision. Finally, he argues that
the agency provided misleading and false information, and the administrative
judge was biased and abused her discretion. 2 PFR File, Tab 1 at 16, Tab 5 at 4,
10.
      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 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

2
  The appellant submits over 200 pages of documents on review, which he asserts were
not submitted below due to his attorney’s error. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-5, 19-223. Some
of the documents are in the record below; therefore, they are not a basis for granting the
petition for review. See Meier v. Department of the Interior , 3 M.S.P.R. 247, 256
(1980) (providing that evidence that is already a part of the record is not new).
Regarding the remaining documents, they predate the close of record below, and the
appellant does not assert that they were unavailable before that time. IAF, Tab 29
at 3-4. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence
submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was
unavailable before the record was closed despite the party’s due diligence. Avansino v.
U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). The appellant has not made this
showing. See Sofio v. Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981) (finding
that the appellant is responsible for the errors of her chosen representative).
                                                                                     3

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. We AFFIRM the initial decision.
We supplement the initial decision to address the appellant’s claims regarding the
conduct of the agency and the administrative judge during the proceedings below.

The appellant did not show that the agency provided false or intentionally
misleading information to the Board.
      The appellant argues that “[t]he [a]gency’s response to [his] petition for
review makes several mischaracterization[s] and false statements . . . to mislead
and deceive the Board.” PFR File, Tab 5 at 4. Specifically, he argues that the
agency is “mislead[ing]” the Board by arguing that his evidence does not show
that he made protected disclosures. Id. at 4-10. Although the appellant disagrees
with the agency’s assertions, he has not shown that the agency provided false
information to the Board. Further, the statements of a party’s representative in a
pleading are not evidence. Hendricks v. Department of the Navy, 69 M.S.P.R.
163, 168 (1995). Thus, the appellant has not shown that the administrative judge
or the Board erred in relying on the evidence in the record in reaching a decision
on this matter. Accordingly, the appellant’s claims do not provide a basis for
granting his petition for review.

The appellant did not show that the administrative judge abused her discretion in
denying his motion to compel discovery.
      The appellant also alleges that the administrative judge improperly denied
his motion to compel additional interrogatories and argues only generally that the
information he sought would likely have supported his claims that his
performance evaluations were unfounded and fabricated.              PFR File, Tab 1
at 15-16. The administrative judge denied the appellant’s motion to compel the
agency’s response to his fifth set of interrogatories because they exceeded the
Board’s interrogatory limit.    IAF, Tab 24 at 5, 59-69, Tab 28; see 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.73(e)(1)   (providing    that,   absent   prior   approval    by   the   judge,
                                                                                   4

interrogatories served by parties upon another party or a nonparty may not exceed
25 in number, including all discrete subparts).
      The appellant has not shown that the administrative judge abused her
discretion in denying his motion to compel. The Board will not find reversible
error in an administrative judge’s discovery rulings absent an abuse of discretion
that prejudiced the appellant’s substantive rights. White v. Government Printing
Office, 108 M.S.P.R. 355, ¶ 9 (2008). The appellant alleges that the discovery
sought would have produced information challenging his supervisors’ bases for
demoting him and proving that other management officials had knowledge of his
disclosures. PFR File, Tab 1 at 14-15. Based on the appellant’s arguments, this
information likely relates to his burden of proving contributing factor and the
agency’s burden of refuting a prima facie case of reprisal, PFR File, Tab 1
at 15-16, which do not relate to the dispositive issue—the appellant’s failure to
prove that he made a protected disclosure. Therefore, the administrative judge’s
decision to deny his motion to compel for review is not reversible error.

The appellant’s other claims of adjudicatory error are not a basis for granting his
petition for review.
      Finally, the appellant requests that the administrative judge be disqualified
from future proceedings “based on the demonstrated pattern of abuse of
discretion.”   PFR File, Tab 1 at 16.    In making a claim of bias or prejudice
against an administrative judge, a party must overcome the presumption of
honesty and integrity that accompanies administrative adjudicators.         Oliver v.
Department of Transportation, 1 M.S.P.R. 382, 386 (1980). An administrative
judge’s conduct during the course of a Board proceeding warrants a new
adjudication only if her comments or actions evidence “a deep-seated favoritism
or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Bieber v. Department
of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The appellant’s claims, which do not relate to
                                                                                      5

any extrajudicial conduct by the administrative judge, neither overcome that
presumption, nor establish a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism.
      Accordingly, we discern no basis for granting the appellant’s petition for
review.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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

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.
                                                                                         6

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:
                              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
                                                                                  7

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
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
                                                                                      8

      (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
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.

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.
                                                                              9

      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.
      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.