Court Opinion

ID: 9372862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:01:11.524231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:38.080743
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                          MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MITCH WINE,                                       DOCKET NUMBER
                           Appellant,                  DA-0752-18-0116-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,                       DATE: February 10, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Mitch Wine, Mountain View, Arkansas, pro se.

           Annette Tarnawsky, Esquire, and John Austin, Esquire, Knoxville,
             Tennessee, for the agency.

                                             BEFORE

                                 Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                   Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                    Tristan L. Leavitt, Member
                               Member Limon recused himself and
                       did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

                                         FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed as settled his appeal challenging his removal from the agenc y. For the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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).

                                           BACKGROUND
¶2         On December 18, 2017, the appellant filed an appeal challenging the
     agency’s decision to remove him from his Fish and Wildlife Biologist position,
     effective December 10, 2017. Wine v. Department of the Interior, MSPB Docket
     No. DA-0752-18-0116-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1-2, 33-45. The
     administrative judge found that the Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under
     5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7513. IAF, Tab 27 at 6. The parties subsequently entered into
     a settlement agreement effective April 27, 2018, and submitted it to the Board for
     enforcement purposes. 2     IAF, Tab 54.      On April 30, 2018, the administrative
     judge issued an initial decision finding that the agreement appeared lawful on its
     face, the parties had freely entered into it, they understood its terms , and they
     wanted the terms of the agreement to be enforceable by the Board. IAF, Tab 56,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 1-2. Thus, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal
     as settled. Id.; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41(c)(2)(i).
¶3         As relevant here, on September 19, 2018, the appellant filed a petition for
     enforcement alleging that the agency breached the settlement agreement. Wine v.
     Department    of   the    Interior,    MSPB    Docket   No.   DA-0752-18-0116-C-1,
     Compliance File (CF-1), Tab 1. In an initial decision dated February 20, 2019,
     the administrative judge granted the petition for enforcement, finding that the
     agency failed to fully comply with the agreement, and ordered it to take certain
     actions to be in compliance with the settlement agreement.            CF-1, Tab 19,
     Compliance Initial Decision at 2, 18-19. On March 15, 2019, the agency filed a
     statement of compliance, and the issue of compliance is still pending before the

     2
       According to the terms of the settlement agreement, the appellant had the right to
     revoke the agreement on or before the April 27, 2018 effective date. IAF, Tab 54 at 4,
     8, 10.
                                                                                            3

     Board. 3 Wine v. Department of the Interior, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-18-
     0116-X-1.
¶4         On November 26, 2021, the appellant filed the herein petition for review.
     Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The Acting Clerk of the Board issued an
     acknowledgment letter, advising the appellant that his petition for review was
     untimely filed because it was not postmarked or received on or before June 4,
     2018, and informing him that he must establish good cause for the untimely
     filing. PFR File, Tab 2 at 1-3. To assist the appellant, the Acting Clerk of the
     Board attached a form “Motion to Accept Filing as Timely and/or to Ask the
     Board to Waive or Set Aside the Time Limit.” Id. at 2, 7-8. The appellant filed
     the required motion. PFR File, Tab 3. The agency has not responded to the
     petition for review.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
     within 35 days after the date of the 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. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e); see also Palermo v. Department of the
     Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 3 (2014). Here, the administrative judge issued the
     initial decision on April 30, 2018, and the appellant, a registered e-filer,

     3
       Following the compliance initial decision, the appellant filed two additional petitions
     for enforcement. Wine v. Department of the Interior, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-18-
     0116-C-2, Compliance File (CF-2), Tab 1; Wine v. Department of the Interior, MSPB
     Docket No. DA-0752-18-0116-C-3, Compliance File (CF-3), Tab 1. Both were
     dismissed for adjudicatory efficiency because they have raised claims that are still
     pending before the Board. CF-2, Tab 28, Compliance Initial Decision at 7; CF-3, Tab
     13, Compliance Initial Decision at 1, 4. Because neither party petitioned for review of
     the decisions dismissing the petitions for enforcement, they are now the final decisions
     of the Board. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 (reflecting that an initial decision generally
     becomes the Board’s final decision 35 days after it is issued absent a petition for
     review).
                                                                                       4

     acknowledges that he received it on the same day. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3; ID at 1.
     The initial decision also correctly informed the appellant that he was required to
     file any petition for review no later than June 24, 2018. ID at 2. The appellant
     filed his petition for review on November 26, 2021. PFR File, Tab 1, Tab 2 at 1.
     As such, we find that the petition for review is untimely filed by over 3 years and
     5 months.
¶6        The Board may waive its timeliness regulations only upon a showing of
     good cause for the untimely filing. Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4; 5 C.F.R.
     §§ 1201.12, 1201.114(g). The party who submits an untimely petition for review
     has the burden of establishing good cause by showing that he exercised due
     diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances of the case.
     Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 594, ¶ 4; Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force,
     4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). 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 h is
     control that affected his ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable
     casualty or misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to h is inability
     to timely file his petition.    Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4; Moorman v.
     Department of the Army, 68 M.S.P.R. 60, 62-63 (1995), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1167 (Fed.
     Cir. 1996) (Table).
¶7        Although the appellant is pro se, the remaining factors disfavor finding that
     good cause exists for his delay in filing.    His filing delay of over 3 years is
     significant. Youngblood v. U.S. Postal Service, 112 M.S.P.R. 136, ¶¶ 7-8 (2009)
     (finding a delay of over 2 years in filing a petition for review was “significant”
     and declining to excuse the untimeliness of the petition, even considering the
     appellant’s pro se status). We have considered the appellant’s assertion that the
     filing deadline should be waived because he “continue[s] to suffer from severe
                                                                                        5

     depression and anxiety related to [a]gency misconduct.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 4.
     The Board will find good cause for an untimely filing when a party demonstrates
     that he suffered from an illness or medical condition that affected h is ability to
     file on time.   See Pirkkala v. Department of Justice, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 19
     (2016).
¶8         To establish that an untimely filing was the result of an illness, the party
     must (1) identify the time period during which he suffered from the illness,
     (2) submit medical evidence showing that he suffered from the alleged illness
     during that time period, and (3) explain how the illness prevented h im from
     timely filing his petition or a request for an extension of time.            Lacy v.
     Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 437 (1998). The party need not prove
     incapacitation, only that his ability to file was affected or impaired by the medical
     condition.   Id. In his motion to waive the time limit for filing a petition for
     review, the appellant did not specifically explain how his “severe depression and
     anxiety” prevented him from timely filing a petition for review or motion for
     an extension of time. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4-5. Thus, he failed to establish that his
     untimely filing was the result of his health conditions.              See Pirkkala,
     123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 20 (finding that the appellant failed to explain how her
     shoulder problems affected her ability to file a time ly removal appeal); Stribling
     v. Department of Education, 107 M.S.P.R. 166, ¶¶ 10-11 (2007) (finding that
     an appellant failed to establish good cause for an untimely filing despite her
     assertion that she suffered from anxiety and depression because she did not
     present any evidence that specifically addressed her condition during the relevant
     time period, and because she failed to explain how her medical conditions
     prevented her from submitting a timely filing or requesting an extension).
¶9         We have also considered the appellant’s argument that the Board should
     find good cause for his untimely filing because “the administrative judge was not
     properly appointed to her position under the Appointments Clause ” based on the
                                                                                        6

      decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange
      Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). Tab 1 at 4, 6. Specifically, he appears to
      allege that this is new and material evidence because he was unaware of Lucia
      and its impact on his case. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. We are not persuaded. The
      discovery of new and material evidence after the initial decision becomes final
      may constitute good cause for an untimely filed petition for review in certain
      circumstances. Copley v. Department of Energy, 58 M.S.P.R. 437, 439 (1993).
      As relevant here, the Court issued Lucia on June 21, 2018, fifty-two days after the
      initial decision in this case. ID at 1. However, the appellant has failed to provide
      any explanation—besides his ignorance of the Lucia decision—for the more than
      3-year delay between its issuance and his November 2021 petition for review.
      See Copley, 58 M.S.P.R. at 439-40 (dismissing a petition for review as untimely
      without good cause when, among other things, the appellant failed to explain the
      months-long delay between his purported discovery of new evidence and the
      filing of his petition); see also Bonk v. Department of Homeland Security,
      109 M.S.P.R. 210, ¶ 7 (2008) (recognizing that any ignorance of the law does not
      warrant waiving the deadline), aff’d, 301 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus,
      even if Lucia was deemed material, he failed to show that he exercised due
      diligence and ordinary prudence in pursuing his appeal or that his significant
      delay was caused by circumstances beyond his control.
¶10        We similarly find unavailing the appellant’s argument that good cause
      exists for his delay in filing because “[he] was coerced into a settlement
      agreement as a result and that settlement agreement has been breached.”
      PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 6. As set forth above, the effective date of the parties’
      settlement agreement was April 27, 2018. IAF, Tab 54 at 4, 7-15. The appellant
      had an opportunity to revoke the settlement prior to the effective date. Id. at 8.
      He also could have challenged this alleged coercion on or before the initial
      decision’s finality date of June 4, 2018. ID at 2. To the extent that he argues that
                                                                                            7

      the agreement has been breached,            as discussed above, the appellant’s
      September 19, 2018 petition for enforcement was granted, and the issue of
      compliance is currently pending before the Board.          Wine, MSPB Docket No.
      DA-0752-18-0116-X-1. Consequently, this claim does not establish good cause
      for the delay in filing his petition for review.
¶11         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. Thi s 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 dismissal of the removal appeal as settled.

                               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 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.
      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.
                                                                                          8

      (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 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
                                                                                  9

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:
                                                                                     10

                            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 rev iew 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:
                                 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                 for the Federal Circuit
                                717 Madison Place, N.W.
                                Washington, D.C. 20439

5
   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.
                                                                              11

      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 n or 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.