Court Opinion

ID: 9395490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 06:00:13.698241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.843508
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                         MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DOCKET NUMBER
       AFFAIRS,                                      CB-7521-16-0013-N-1
                 Petitioner,

                   v.
                                                     DATE: May 17, 2023
     JAMES MARKEY,
                 Respondent.

                   THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

             Christina Knott, Esquire, and Hansel Cordeiro, Esquire, Washington, D.C.,
               for the petitioner.

             Cheri L. Cannon, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

                                           BEFORE

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

                        ORDER DISMISSING REQUEST FOR A STAY

¶1           The respondent has filed an Emergency Request for a Protective Order and
     for a Stay in this appeal. For the following reasons, the request is DISMISSED as
     moot.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2         The respondent was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA
     or agency) as a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Department of Veterans Affairs v.
     Markey, CB-7521-16-0013-T-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 153, 176. On
     February 1, 2016, DVA filed a complaint under 38 U.S.C. § 7101A(e)(2), to be
     conducted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7521, requesting that the Board find good cause
     to remove the respondent for conduct unbecoming a VLJ and for misuse of
     Government resources.      Id. at 4-14.     Following a hearing, the presiding
     administrative law judge issued an initial decision finding that DVA proved both
     of its charges, the respondent failed to prove his affirmative defenses, and DVA
     had good cause to remove the respondent from his VLJ position. IAF, Tab 33,
     Initial Decision (ID).
¶3         In the initial decision, dated November 9, 2017, the presiding administrative
     law judge notified the respondent of his review rights.      ID at 1, 54-61.    Of
     relevance here, the notice informed him that the initial decision would become
     final on December 14, 2017, unless a petition for review was filed by that date.
     ID at 54.
¶4         It is undisputed that, on November 20, 2017, DVA notified the respondent
     that it would remove him, effective November 24, 2017. Request for Stay (RFS)
     File, Tab 1 at 3, Tab 4 at 5. On November 22, 2017, the respondent filed the
     present Emergency Request for a Protective Order and for a Stay.         RFS File,
     Tab 1. DVA subsequently removed the respondent, effective November 24, 2017.
     RFS File, Tab 4 at 7.
¶5         On November 30, 2017, the Acting Clerk of the Board issued an order
     informing the parties that the Board lacked a quorum and that, as a result, the
     issues raised in the respondent’s request and DVA’s response would await a
     decision until a quorum was restored. RFS File, Tab 5. The administrative law
     judge’s initial decision became the final decision of the Board on December 14,
     2017, when neither party petitioned for review. ID at 54.
                                                                                     3

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶6        In his Emergency Request for a Protective Order and for a Stay, the
     respondent seeks that the Board issue a protective order and stay prohibiting DVA
     from removing him from Federal service “until such time as the order becomes a
     final decision of the MSPB.” RFS File, Tab 1 at 2-3. As stated above, the initial
     decision became the final decision of the Board on December 14, 2017, wh en
     neither party petitioned for review. ID at 54.
¶7        The Board consistently has held that a case is moot when the issues it raises
     are no longer live.    See Gregory v. U.S. Postal Service, 91 M.S.P.R. 52, ¶ 6
     (2002); Currier v. U.S. Postal Service, 72 M.S.P.R. 191, 195 (1996); Occhipinti
     v. Department of Justice, 61 M.S.P.R. 504, 507 (1994).        Here, although the
     respondent’s request for a protective order and stay of his removal was a live
     controversy when he filed it on November 22, 2017, DVA effected his removal
     2 days later, on November 24, 2017. RFS File, Tab 4 at 7. Accordingly, there is
     no longer a live controversy for the Board to adjudicate because DVA has already
     removed the appellant. See Occhipinti, 61 M.S.P.R. at 507 (holding that there
     must be a live case or controversy when a case is decided, not merely when the
     complaint is filed) (citing Spectronics Corp. v. H .B. Fuller Co., Inc., 940 F.2d
     631, 635 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We therefore find the respondent’s request moot. Id.
     The Board is specifically prohibited from issuing advisory opinions and thus may
     not render an opinion in a matter that is moot.    5 U.S.C. § 1204(h); Gregory,
     91 M.S.P.R. 52, ¶ 7.
                                                                         4

¶8        Accordingly, the respondent’s request is dismissed.

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