Court Opinion

ID: 9555447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-12 06:00:22.923942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:15.970795
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     HENRY SEARCY, JR.,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DC-1221-21-0555-W-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,                      DATE: August 11, 2023
                 Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Henry Searcy, Jr., Bowie, Maryland, pro se.

           Stephanie J. Mitchell, Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, 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 individual right of action (IRA) appeal without prejudice to
     refiling. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for
     review and REMAND this matter to the Washington Regional Office for further
     adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2         On December 27, 2021, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dismissing this matter without prejudice to refiling because of a significant
     overlap of issues between this matter and another IRA appeal previously filed by
     the appellant, i.e., Searcy v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No.
     DC-1221-20-0455-W-1 (Searcy I).          Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 15, Initial
     Decision (ID) at 1-2. 2 In so doing, the administrative judge explained that the
     instant appeal would be automatically refiled “180 days from the date of [the
     initial] decision, or within 30 days of the Board’s issuance of its decision in
     Searcy I, whichever date occurs first.” ID at 2-3. The appellant thereafter filed a
     petition for review of the initial decision wherein he largely argues the merits of
     his IRA appeal(s). 3 Petition for Review File, Tab 1.
¶3         To the extent the appellant argues that the administrative judge abused his
     discretion in dismissing this matter without prejudice, we disagree; indeed, there
     is a significant overlap of issues between this matter and Searcy I. See Wheeler v.
     Department of Defense, 113 M.S.P.R. 519, ¶ 7 (2010) (concluding that the
     administrative judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing an appeal without
     prejudice when the matter shared a common issue with another Board appeal); see
     also Brigham v. Office of Personnel Management, 110 M.S.P.R. 108, ¶ 8 (2008)
     (stating that the Board may dismiss an appeal without prejudice to refiling in
     order to avoid a lengthy or indefinite continuance). To the extent he argues the
     merits of his appeal, his arguments are misplaced; indeed, the administrative

     2
       Prior to issuing the initial decision, the administrative judge telephoned both parties,
     left voicemails explaining that it appeared that he should dismiss the matter without
     prejudice due to the overlap of issues, and requested that both parties return h is call.
     IAF, Tab 14 at 1. Neither party did so. Id. Approximately 3 weeks later, the
     administrative judge issued an order explaining that he intended to dismiss the matter
     without prejudice and providing the parties with 5 days to object. Id. at 1-2. Neither
     party objected or otherwise responded to the order.
     3
       Because the appellant’s petition for review ostensibly challenged the administrative
     judge’s dismissal of the instant matter without prejudice, the matter was not
     automatically redocketed with the administrative judge 180 days following the issuance
     of the December 27, 2021 initial decision. ID at 2-3.
                                                                                      3

     judge did not issue a finding regarding Board jurisdiction over the instant appeal.
     See Schmittling v. Department of the Army, 219 F.3d 1332, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.
     2000) (explaining that the Board must first resolve the threshold issue of
     jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of an appeal).
¶4        Of note, the Board has issued its decision in Searcy I, i.e., one of the
     conditions that the administrative judge indicated would trigger the refiling of
     this matter. ID at 2-3. However, as stated, the administrative judge has yet to
     issue a jurisdictional finding for the instant appeal.    Accordingly, we find it
     appropriate to remand this case for a jurisdictional determination and, if
     appropriate, adjudication of the merits.     See Wheeler, 113 M.S.P.R. 519, ¶ 7
     (remanding an appeal that had been dismissed without prejudice because it shared
     a common issue with a prior appeal filed by the same appellant because the Board
     had since issued a final decision in the prior appeal). On remand, the regional
     office may elect to join the appellant’s two IRA appeals. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36.

                                          ORDER
¶5        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Washington
     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.