Court Opinion

ID: 9373261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:03:48.093714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:40.623851
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     EVELYN A. ANDERSON,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         DA-0752-13-0106-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: November 2, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Evelyn A. Anderson, Grand Prairie, Texas, pro se.

           Ashley Rutherford, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the agency’s removal action.        For the reasons set forth below, the
     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).
                                                                                     2

                                     BACKGROUND
¶2         The administrative judge issued a March 28, 2013 initial decision in which
     he affirmed the appellant’s removal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 19, Initial Decision
     (ID). The initial decision informed the parties that it would become the final
     decision of the Board on May 2, 2013, unless a petition for review were filed by
     that date. ID at 6. On April 3, 2017, the appellant filed a petition for review
     nearly 4 years out of time. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The Office of
     the Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that her petition for review
     appeared to be untimely filed and instructed her to submit evidence and argument
     showing that the petition for review was timely filed or that good cause existed
     for the delay in filing. PFR File, Tab 2. In response, the appellant submitted a
     Motion to Accept Filing as Timely and/or to Ask the Board to Waive or Set Aside
     the Time Limit in which she asserted that she had “reached out” to the “Judicial
     Review Board” in April 2013, as well as the Department of Labor and Department
     of Justice, but was unable to obtain any assistance. PFR File, Tab 4 at 1. She
     also asserted that, as a pro se appellant, she was u nfamiliar with Board
     procedures, that three people close to her had died in late 2012, and that she had
     been going through a complicated divorce.     Id.   The agency responded to the
     appellant’s petition for review, and she replied to the agency’s response. PFR
     File, Tabs 5-7.

                                        ANALYSIS
¶3         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
     upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). To
     establish good cause for the untimely filing of an appeal, a party must show that
     she exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular
     circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R.
     180, 184 (1980). To consider whether a party has shown good cause, the Board
     will consider the length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and her
                                                                                           3

     showing of due diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has
     presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that
     affected her ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or
     misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely
     file her petition. 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).
¶4         The appellant’s pro se status is one consideration to be taken into account in
     determining whether she has shown good cause. However, her inexperience with
     legal matters and her unfamiliarity with Board procedures do not warrant waiving
     the filing deadline. Basu v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 594 F. App’x 981,
     983 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that “an appellant’s confusion regarding Board
     procedures does not demonstrate good cause for waiving a filing deadline” ); 2
     Lagreca v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 162, ¶ 9 (2010). This is particularly
     so when the initial decision provided her with clear and unambiguous instructions
     as to how she could file a petition for review. Guenther v. U.S. Postal Service,
     68 M.S.P.R. 667, 670 (1995). Similarly, her attempt to obtain assistance from
     other agencies, rather than simply following the straightforward instructions she
     was provided, militates against a finding of due diligence.              Agbenyeke v.
     Department of Justice, 111 M.S.P.R. 140, ¶ 8 (2009) (stating that the appellant’s
     failure to contact the Board to attempt to remedy her confusion weighed against a
     finding of good cause); Johnson v. Department of the Air Force, 92 M.S.P.R. 370,
     ¶ 10 (2002) (deciding to pursue claims in another forum did not show good
     cause).
¶5         In addition, the Board has held that general personal difficulties do not
     constitute good cause.    Crozier v. Department of Transportation, 93 M.S.P.R.
     438, ¶ 9 (2003).    The appellant’s divorce and the unfortunate series of deaths

     2
      The Board may rely on a nonprecedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     Federal Circuit when, as here, it finds its reasoning persuasive. Encarnado v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 301, ¶ 12 n.6 (2011).
                                                                                           4

     among her family and friends also do not constitute good cause.               Crisp v.
     Department of Veterans Affairs, 73 M.S.P.R. 231, 234 (1997) (concerning divorce
     and other difficulties); Moles v. Office of Personnel Management, 43 M.S.P.R.
     89, 90 (1989) (concerning death in the family). Moreover, the appellant has not
     explained why the effects from these difficulties prevented her from filing her
     petition for review for nearly 4 years.      Crisp, 73 M.S.P.R. at 235.       We find,
     therefore, that the appellant has not shown good cause for the extensive delay in
     filing her petition for review.
¶6         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. 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 appellant’s removal.

                              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 M erit
     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.

     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.
                                                                                         5

      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:
                              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
                                                                                  6

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. ____ , 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:
                                                                                      7

                            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. 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).

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.
                                                                                  8

      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.
      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.