Court Opinion

ID: 9373770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:15.034941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.925784
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     JOSE W. LINARES-ROSADO,                          DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                         NY-3330-12-0223-I-1

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                    DATE: April 14, 2022
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Jose W. Linares-Rosado, Luguillo, Puerto Rico, pro se.

           Krista M. Irons, Esquire, New York, New York, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                        FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision,
     which denied his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment
     Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA).              For the reasons set forth below,
     the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
     cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
                                        BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed the instant appeal arguing, among other things, that the
     agency violated his rights under VEOA when it rescinded its conditional job offer
     after finding the appellant medically unsuitable for the position of City Carrier.
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6, 21-22.                The administrative judge
     subsequently issued an initial decision denying the appellant’s request for
     corrective action under VEOA, finding the appellant failed to meet the 60-day
     time limit for filing a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) after the
     agency action in question.           IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-5.
     The administrative judge additionally found that the appellant failed to
     establish that the 60-day filing deadline was subject to equitable tolling.             Id.
     In the alternative, the administrative judge found that the appellant was barred by
     res judicata from relitigating matters previously decided before the Board in
     Linares-Rosado v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-3330-08-0346-B-1.
     ID at 5-6.     The administrative judge informed the appellant that the initial
     decision would become final on November 28, 2012, unless a petition for review
     was filed by that date. ID at 6-7.
¶3         The appellant filed a petition for review of the initial decision on
     June 7, 2021. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 1-2. 2 The agency has
     responded to his petition for review, and the appellant has replied to its response.
     PFR File, Tab 7, Tab 10.

     2
       The appellant initially filed submissions on May 4, May 5, and May 15, 2021. PFR
     File, Tabs 1-2. After the Acting Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that his
     submissions did not comply with the Board’s regulations and would not be processed as
     a petition for review, he submitted a perfected petition for review. PFR File, Tabs 2, 4.
     Thereafter, the Acting Clerk of the Board issued a notice properly acknowledging
     June 7, 2021, as the filing date of the appellant’s petition for review. PFR File, Tab 5;
     see Robinson v. Office of Personnel Management, 56 M.S.P.R. 325, 328 (addressing the
     timeliness of the appellant’s perfected petition for review), aff’d, 5 F.3d 1505 (Fed. Cir.
     1993).
                       DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
     The appellant’s petition for review is untimely filed without good cause shown
     for the delay in filing.
¶4         A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the date of issuance
     of the initial decision or, if the petitioner shows that the initial decision was
     received more than 5 days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the date
     the petitioner received the initial decision.        Hawley v. Social Security
     Administration, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4 (2008); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
     The initial decision was properly served on the appellant, and he agrees that
     he received it.   IAF, Tab 10; PFR File, Tab 4 at 23.         Thus, to be timely,
     the appellant’s petition for review should have been filed by November 28, 2012.
     ID at 6-7. The appellant filed his petition for review on June 7, 2021. PFR File,
     Tab 1 at 2. Accordingly, his petition for review is untimely filed by over 8 years.
¶5         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review upon
     a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. Hawley, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4;
     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party
     must show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the
     particular circumstances of the case.        Hawley, 108 M.S.P.R. 587, ¶ 4.
     To determine whether an appellant has shown good cause, the Board will consider
     the length of the delay, the reasonableness of his excuse and his showing of due
     diligence, whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he has presented evidence
     of the existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to
     comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune which
     similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely file his petition.
     Id.
¶6         The appellant argues that good cause exists for his untimeliness because
     he has been waiting for the agency representative to submit all of the evidence
     and documents used in his appeal. PFR File, Tab 4 at 1-4. He further asserts that
     he has been requesting that the administrative judge order the agency to present
     such evidence and documents, and he has been waiting on a response from the
     administrative judge. Id. at 2, 4. Finally, he claims that he has been requesting
     that the administrative judge exclude the agency’s former representative 3 from the
     case due to an alleged conflict of interest, and he has similarly been waiting on
     a response from the administrative judge on this issue. Id. We find that he has
     failed to present good cause for waiver of the deadline to file.
¶7         Although the appellant is pro se, his over 8-year delay in filing is lengthy
     and militates against waiving the filing deadline. See Whitworth v. Department of
     the Treasury, 106 M.S.P.R. 401, ¶ 7 (2007), aff’d, 268 F. App’x 962 (Fed. Cir.
     2008). Furthermore, his assertion that he was waiting on documents from the
     agency and responses from the administrative judge do not establish good cause
     for a waiver of the filing deadline. Indeed, he has not explained his attempts to
     obtain these documents or why he could not have submitted his petition for
     review without them.         See Schuringa v. Department of the Treasury,
     106 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 8 (2007); Benroth v. Department of the Army, 79 M.S.P.R. 15,
     ¶ 6 (1998).    Of note, the record does not contain any discovery requests or
     motions seeking to compel discovery by the appellant. Moreover, the agency did
     respond with evidence and argument on the VEOA jurisdictional issue.
     IAF, Tab 9.   Nonetheless, regardless of whether the appellant submitted any
     requests for evidence, he has not demonstrated how his alleged requests, or the
     absence of any responses, affected his ability to timely file his petition for
     review.   See Benroth, 79 M.S.P.R. 15, ¶ 6 (finding no good cause when
     an appellant failed to explain why he could not have timely submitted a petition
     for review without certain documents). Even if the agency improperly failed to
     submit evidence and the administrative judge failed to respond to the appellant’s
     requests, he has not explained how this prevented him from raising these issues

     3
       On June 22, 2021, the agency deactivated that representative and designated a new
     agency representative in this appeal. PFR File, Tab 6.
     following issuance of the initial decision in a timely petition for review. We have
     reviewed the appellant’s remaining arguments, many of which pertain to the
     merits of the appeal and alleged error by the ad ministrative judge; however,
     we find that the appellant has not explained how he was prevented from raising
     any of these arguments in a timely petition for review. We conclude that the
     appellant did not exercise due diligence or ordinary prudence as would excuse
     his substantial filing delay of more than 8 years.
¶8         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed without
     good cause shown. This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection
     Board regarding the timeliness of the petition for review. The initial decision
     remains the final decision of the Board regarding the appeal under VEOA.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
           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 w ithin 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

     4
       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.
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
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 ma y 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. ____ , 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:
                            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. 5   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:

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdictio n 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.
                             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.
      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.