Court Opinion

ID: 9957871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 16:00:29.143209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:36.908868
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JASON D. DEMUTH,                                DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         CH-0752-22-0374-I-1

             v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: April 4, 2024
              Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Jason D. DeMuth , Frankfort, Kentucky, pro se.

      Bobbi K. Mihal , Esquire, St. Louis, Missouri, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed his removal appeal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 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

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

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).

                                BACKGROUND
      In July 2022, the appellant filed an appeal challenging his removal from
Federal service. Initial Appeal Form (IAF), Tab 1. He mailed his initial appeal
form to the regional office and did not register as an e-filer.     Id. at 27.   On
August 3, 2022, the administrative judge issued an order scheduling a preliminary
status conference for August 12, 2022. IAF, Tab 6 at 1. The order was mailed to
the appellant at the address he listed on his initial appeal form. IAF, Tab 1 at 1,
Tab 6 at 2. The appellant did not appear for the status conference. IAF, Tab 7
at 1. According to the administrative judge, the agency called the appellant on
the day of the conference and left a voicemail on his phone.             Id.     The
administrative judge issued an order rescheduling the status conference for
August 26, 2022, which was sent to the appellant by mail. Id. at 1-2. The order
warned that failure to participate in the conference could result in sanctions,
including dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 1. The appellant did not appear for the
rescheduled status conference. IAF, Tab 8 at 1. Accordingly, the administrative
judge issued an order instructing the appellant to show cause for his failure to
prosecute and warning him that failure to respond by September 9, 2022, could
                                                                                  3

result in dismissal of the appeal. IAF, Tab 8 at 1-2. The appellant did not file a
response.   On September 12, 2022, the administrative judge issued an initial
decision dismissing the appeal with prejudice as a sanction for the appellant’s
failure to prosecute. IAF, Tab 9, Initial Decision (ID) at 1-4. The appellant has
filed a timely petition for review and the agency has filed a response in
opposition. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 3.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, the Board will not reverse an
administrative judge’s determination regarding sanctions. Williams v. U.S. Postal
Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 377, ¶ 7 (2011). The sanction of dismissal with prejudice
may be imposed if a party fails to prosecute or defend an appeal.      Leseman v.
Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 139, ¶ 6 (2015); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43(b).
An administrative judge may impose sanctions upon the parties as necessary to
serve the ends of justice. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43.
      On review, the appellant asserts that, on July 29, 2022, he moved from the
address he listed in his initial appeal form. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. He states that,
after he moved, someone gathered his mail and brought it to him “about 3 to
4 weeks later.” Id. He provided his new mailing address with his petition for
review. Id. Regarding the status conference, the appellant stated that he was
unable to answer his phone because he “did not have a sufficient amount of time
to work the conference call into [his] schedule.” Id. With his petition for review,
the appellant also filed a statement purportedly written by a union steward. Id.
at 2. Although most of the statement pertains to the merits of the appellant’s
removal, it also asserts that the appellant “did not receive a lot of his mail and
was unable to join in on the conference call.” Id.
      An appellant is responsible for notifying the Board of a change of address.
West v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , 69 M.S.P.R. 310, 313
(1996); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.26(b)(2). Under these circumstances, we find that the
                                                                                      4

appellant did not act diligently because he waited almost 3 months after he moved
to provide the Board with his new address. PFR File, Tab 1 at 1; see Graham v.
U.S. Postal Service, 32 M.S.P.R. 572, 574 (1987) (finding that the appellant’s
failure to notify the regional office of his new address did not establish good
cause for an untimely filing).        Even assuming the appellant received the
administrative judge’s orders 4 weeks after they were sent, at a minimum, he
would have received the acknowledgment order 2 and the preliminary status
conference order before the initial decision was issued. IAF, Tabs 2, 6. He has
not explained why he took no action to prosecute his appeal when he received
those orders or when the agency called him on August 12, 2022. IAF, Tab 7 at 1;
PFR File, Tab 1 at 1. We find that the administrative judge did not abuse her
discretion in sanctioning the appellant for his failure to exercise due diligence in
prosecuting his appeal.    See Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 640,
¶ 16 (2016) (upholding the dismissal of an appeal with prejudice when, after
registering as an e-filer, the appellant took no steps to pursue his appeal), aff’d
per curiam, 681 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2017); cf. Sullivan v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 86 M.S.P.R. 117, ¶ 7 (2000) (finding that the administrative
judge abused her discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute
because the appellant had attempted to participate in the proceedings by filing a
timely, albeit incomplete, pleading and leaving a voicemail for the administrative
judge regarding his attempts to comply with an order).
      Insofar as the appellant’s remaining arguments pertain to the merits of the
underlying removal, we do not consider them because they are not relevant to the
issue of whether the administrative judge abused her discretion in dismissing this
appeal with prejudice. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. We therefore deny the petition for
review and affirm the initial decision.

2
  The acknowledgment order was sent to the appellant more than 2 weeks before he
moved and noted that the appellant was personally responsible for prosecuting his case
in a timely manner. IAF, Tab 2 at 11, 17. It also contained instructions for registering
as an e-filer. Id. at 16.
                                                                                          5

                           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.

      (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:

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

                             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
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
                                                                                  7

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
                                                                                      8

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.
      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.

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

      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.