Court Opinion

ID: 9409079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:23.716818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.724610
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DEIDRA LINTZ,                                   DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  SF-0353-09-0247-I-3

                  v.

     UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,                   DATE: July 14, 2023
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Deidra Lintz, Elk Grove, California, pro se.

           Catherine V. Meek, Esquire, Long Beach, California, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, whic h
     dismissed her appeal as untimely refiled without a showing of good cause for the
     delay of approximately 4 years. 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

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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.        Except as expressly
     MODIFIED to apply the good cause standard specific to the untimely refiling of
     an appeal previously dismissed without prejudice, we AFFIRM the initial
     decision.
¶2         The Board has held that its dismissal without prejudice practice should not
     become a trap to deny an appellant the opportunity to have her case decided on
     the merits.    Jaramillo v. Department of the Air Force, 106 M.S.P.R. 244, ¶ 6
     (2007). Accordingly, the Board has identified specific standards for determining
     whether good cause exists for excusing an untimely filed appeal of a matter
     previously dismissed without prejudice.         Sherman v. U.S. Postal Service,
     118 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 9 (2012); Nelson v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 644,
     ¶ 8 (2010), aff’d, 414 F. App’x 292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).            These include the
     following: the appellant’s pro se status; the timeliness of the initial appeal; the
     appellant’s demonstrated intent throughout the proceedings to refile the appeal;
     the length of the delay in filing; confusion surrounding and arbitrariness of the
     refiling deadline; the number of prior dismissals without prejudice; the agency’s
     failure to object to the dismissal without prejudice; and the lack of prejudice to
     the agency in allowing the refiled appeal.       Sherman, 118 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 9;
     Nelson, 113 M.S.P.R. 644, ¶ 8.
                                                                                      3

¶3        Although the administrative judge did not apply the standard described
     above, we agree with his ultimate conclusion that the appellant did not establish
     good cause for her untimely refiling. In the appellant’s favor, her initial appeal
     was timely filed, the agency did not object to either of the prior dismissals
     without prejudice, and the agency has not asserted that it would be prejudiced by
     allowing the refiled appeal. The number of prior dismissals without prejudice
     (two) is also not especially large. Cf. Sherman, 118 M.S.P.R. 265, ¶ 10 (finding
     that four prior dismissals without prejudice weighed against the appellant).
     However, the delay of nearly 4 years weighs against a finding of good cause, see
     Nelson, 113 M.S.P.R. 644, ¶ 9 (finding a 4-month refiling delay “far from
     minimal”), and the appellant did not demonstrate an intent to refile durin g that
     period. Moreover, we find nothing that would justify any confusion about the
     clearly stated deadline—which, far from being arbitrary, was chosen to
     accommodate the appellant’s request to obtain a final decision from the Office of
     Workers’ Compensation Programs before resuming the Board proceedings.            In
     addition, the appellant had a designated representative at the time her appeal was
     last dismissed without prejudice, and she did not revoke that designation until
     after the untimely refiling of her appeal. To the extent the appellant contends her
     representative was unresponsive to the Board’s orders, it is well settled that an
     appellant is responsible for the errors of her chosen representative, Sofio v.
     Internal Revenue Service, 7 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1981), and we find no merit to
     her apparent suggestion that the agency was responsible for notifying the Board
     of his change of address. Based on the foregoing, we find the appellant has not
     shown good cause for the untimely refiling, and we therefore affirm the dismissal
     of her appeal.
                                                                                      4

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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 an d
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).

2
  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.
                                                                                   5

      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 fo llowing
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 partic ular
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
                                                                                 6

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
                                                                                      7

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. 3   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

3
   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

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.