Court Opinion

ID: 9963934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 16:01:04.609349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:05.123889
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

HENRY LEE COBBS, JR.,                           DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         AT-0752-18-0686-I-1

               v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,                    DATE: April 25, 2024
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Henry Lee Cobbs, Jr. , Miramar Beach, Florida, pro se.

      Holly Buchanan and William V. Cochrane , Eglin Air Force Base, Florida,
        for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

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

                                  FINAL ORDER

      An attorney has filed a petition for review of the initial decision that
dismissed the appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth
below, we DISMISS the petition for review as deficient under the Board’s
regulations.

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

       The administrative judge issued a September 25, 2018 initial decision in
which he dismissed the appellant’s appeal of his alleged involuntary retirement
for lack of jurisdiction. Initial Appeal File, Tab 8, Initial Decision at 1, 7. On
October 15, 2018, the appellant filed a document that the Clerk of the Board
acknowledged as a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1-2.
Thereafter, an attorney purporting to be the appellant’s representative filed a
petition for review on the appellant’s behalf. 2 PFR File, Tab 3. The Clerk issued
a notice informing the parties that it had been mistaken in interpreting the
appellant’s initial pleading as a petition for review. PFR File, Tab 4 at 1. The
Clerk further informed the parties that the appellant was required to designate his
representative in writing, sent him a form to enable him to do so, and warned him
that the failure to return a signed designation of representative form could result
in the dismissal of his petition for review.        Id. at 1, 7. The appellant did not
respond to the Clerk’s notice. The agency responded in opposition to the petition
for review. PFR File, Tab 5.
       The Board’s regulations require that all submissions relating to a petition
for review must contain the signature of the party or of the party’s designated
representative. Schaberg v. U.S. Postal Service, 104 M.S.P.R. 621, ¶ 6 (2007);
5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(c). An appellant must designate his representative, if any, in
writing. Schaberg, 104 M.S.P.R. 621, ¶ 6; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.31(a).
       The appellant’s initial pleading on review was clearly a discovery response;
it did not refer to the initial decision or challenge the initial decision in any
fashion. PFR File, Tab 1. We find that the Clerk properly determined that it was
not a petition for review. The pleading submitted by the attorney is a petition for
review. However, it is not signed by the appellant or by a properly designated
representative.    The Clerk informed the appellant that his petition for review

2
  In his initial appeal, the appellant designated an elected official as his representative.
This individual did not file any pleadings on the appellant’s behalf during the
proceedings before the administrative judge or before the Board during the petition for
review proceedings.
                                                                                      3

could be dismissed if he did not properly designate his representative in writing,
PFR File, Tab 4 at 1, but the appellant failed to respond to the Clerk’s notice or
otherwise cure his deficient petition for review. Therefore, it is deficient under
the Board’s regulations and must be dismissed. Schaberg, 104 M.S.P.R. 621, ¶ 6.
      Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review.               This is the final
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the dismissal of the
petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the Board
regarding the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                         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.
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.
                                                                                         4

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 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,
                                                                                  5

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
                                                                                      6

      (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. 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.

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.
                                                                              7

      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:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.