Court Opinion

ID: 9373581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:05:59.752431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.287257
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     LARRY L. HARMON,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         CH-0752-17-0278-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: July 15, 2022
                   Agency.

                THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Hartley David Alley, Esquire, San Antonio, Texas, for the appellant.

           Mark Kluge, Hartford, Wisconsin, for the appellant.

           Kathleen D. Crawford, Esquire, and Maryl R. Rosen, Esquire, Chicago,
             Illinois, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed without prejudice his appeal of the agency’s removal action.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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
     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).
¶2         On November 1, 2017, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dismissing the appeal without prejudice and establishing an automatic refiling
     date of December 7, 2017. Initial Appeal File, Tab 55, Initial Decision (ID) at 3.
     The appellant has filed a petition for review arguing that the refiling period was
     too short and did not provide sufficient time for the parties to resolve their
     discovery disputes. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. He also stated
     that new and material evidence regarding his medical condition arose after t he
     initial decision was issued, but he has not submitted that alleged evidence here.
     Id.
¶3         The agency has filed a response, arguing that the appellant’s petition only
     addresses whether a new or longer dismissal period should be granted and does
     not challenge the dismissal itself. PFR File, Tab 2 at 13. It also argues that the
     appellant’s actions following the issuance of the initial decision indicate that the
     appellant “does not intend to participate in the processing of his appeal” and that
     his actions only seek to further delay the appeal process.             Id. at 11-14.
                                                                                          3

     The agency requests that the Board impose sanctions and dismiss the appeal
     with prejudice, awarding costs and fees, and that it deny the appellant’s
     November 29, 2017 motion for a protective order. 2 Id. at 14.
¶4         An administrative judge has wide discretion to control the proceedings
     before him, and a dismissal without prejudice to refiling is a procedural option
     left to his sound discretion.       Desmond v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
     90 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 4 (2001). We have reviewed the record and have not found
     any evidence that the administrative judge abused his d iscretion in dismissing the
     appeal without prejudice. Rather, he exercised his discretion in the interests of
     efficiency to allow the parties to resolve their discovery disputes and conflicting
     schedules. ID at 2-3. We find that this is a proper use of his discretion, and we
     will not disturb the initial decision here.
¶5         Regarding the agency’s request that the Board deny the appellant’s
     November 29, 2017 motion for a protective order, we note that the motion is not
     currently in the record, and we abstain from ruling on it. Regarding the agency’s
     request that the Board dismiss this appeal with prejudice, we decline to impose
     that sanction here. See Lewis v. Department of the Air Force, 69 M.S.P.R. 40, 44
     (1995) (stating that if an appeal has been dismissed without prejudice in an initial
     decision and the appellant then files a petition for review of that decision, the
     Board will not consider arguments raised on review concerning discovery
     disputes, the imposition of sanctions, or other matters that should be considered
     by the administrative judge once the appeal has been refiled). Accordingly, the
     agency’s motion for a dismissal with prejudice is DENIED.
¶6         Because the Board treats an appellant’s timely petition for review of an
     initial decision dismissing without prejudice as a timely refiled appeal , Desmond,

     2
      After the record closed on review, the appellant submitted a pleading indicating that
     he had been separated from the agency and granted disability retirement. PFR File,
     Tab 5. He also suggested that he was willing to withdraw or settle the appeal, id.;
     however, the parties have not submitted any settlement agreement, and the appellant has
     not withdrawn his appeal.
                                                                                           4

     90 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 6, the appellant may present his assertions regarding
     continuing discovery disputes, medical conditions, and any other claims to the
     administrative judge, id.
¶7         Accordingly, we DENY the appellant’s petition for review of the initial
     decision, and we FORWARD this case to the regional office for adjudication on
     the merits.     This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board
     regarding the initial decision dismissing the appeal without prejudice to refiling.
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.

                              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.

     3
       Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have up dated
     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

      (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:
                              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
                                                                                  6

receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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 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:
                                                                                      7

                            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
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

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

      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 at torney 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:                            /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.