Court Opinion

ID: 9403561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:52.399419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.791398
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1587    Document: 12     Page: 1   Filed: 06/08/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

           CHRISTOPHER R. CHIN-YOUNG,
                    Petitioner

                             v.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-1587
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0752-11-0394-C-3.
                 ______________________

     Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     In response to the court’s order to show cause, Chris-
 topher R. Chin-Young urges the court not to dismiss, con-
 tends that the Department of the Army is not the proper
 respondent, and requests consolidation with two of his
 other pending appeals. The Department of the Army re-
 sponds in favor of dismissal of this petition as untimely.
     After unsuccessfully challenging the Merit Systems
 Protection Board’s September 2016 final decision in the re-
 gional circuit, see Chin-Young v. United States, 816 F.
Case: 23-1587     Document: 12     Page: 2     Filed: 06/08/2023

 2                                        CHIN-YOUNG   v. ARMY

 App’x 857 (4th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal), Mr. Chin-
 Young filed this petition in March 2023 seeking review of
 that decision.
     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition must be filed
 “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the fi-
 nal . . . decision,” and this deadline is mandatory and juris-
 dictional, Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013,
 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, over six years have passed
 since the Board’s final decision. Our precedent further re-
 quires that we reject Mr. Chin-Young’s arguments for eq-
 uitable tolling. Id. To the extent Mr. Chin-Young seeks
 review of the district court’s or the United States Court of
 Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision, we similarly lack
 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Because we lack ju-
 risdiction, Mr. Chin-Young’s arguments as to the proper re-
 spondent and consolidation are moot.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
     (3) Any pending motions are denied as moot.
                                       FOR THE COURT

June 8, 2023                           /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
   Date                                Jarrett B. Perlow
                                       Acting Clerk of Court