Howell v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2320,85-2320 |
| Parties | Donnell HOWELL, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, Department of Justice, Proposed Intervenor. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Donnell Howell, pro se.
Evangeline W. Swift, Gen. Counsel, Mary L. Jennings, Associate Gen. Counsel for Litigation, David C. Kane, Reviewer for Litigation and Michael K. Martin, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, D.C., submitted for respondent.
Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. and David Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., submitted for intervenor.
Before SMITH, NIES and BISSELL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The MSPB has filed a petition for rehearing asserting two grounds therefor:
1. that the court erred in its ruling on the finality date of an MSPB decision, and
2. that, in any event, the merits of that decision were not before the court and thus, the court could not reverse on the merits.
The Department of Justice has filed a motion to intervene and a petition for rehearing by which it seeks to defend the merits of the adverse action (a 30-day suspension).
Both motions are dealt with in this order and are denied. 1
The Department of Justice imposed a 30-day suspension on Donnell Howell from his position as a correctional officer with the Department of Justice, Federal Prison System, Atlanta, Georgia. In an initial decision issued September 28, 1984, the presiding official of the MSPB affirmed the agency action and gave notice to Howell that the decision would become the final decision of the board on November 2, 1984, unless Howell filed a petition for review with the full board before that date. Howell filed a petition for review on November 4, 1984. By notice of November 9, 1984, Howell was provided an opportunity to show good cause why his petition for review was not filed in a timely fashion. In his response, Mr. Howell explained that his duty station was placed in an emergency situation on November 1-2, 1984, and that "the nature of his duties during this emergency would not permit the time necessary to transact the filing of said petition any sooner than it was submitted."
In an order dated February 21, 1985, the full board held that Howell had failed to establish good cause for waiver of the board's filing deadline and dismissed Howell's petition as untimely. In the order of dismissal, the board stated that the order was the final order of the MSPB and that the initial decision would become final five days from the date of the February 21, 1985, order. The order further notified Howell of his right to seek judicial review in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703 and that the petition for judicial review had to be received by this court no later than 30 days after receipt of the board's order.
Howell appealed to this court within the prescribed time and thereafter duly filed a brief challenging the presiding official's decision on the merits. He further challenged the MSPB's decision denying review because of the untimely filing. The MSPB's brief in response was directed solely to the question of the reasonableness of the board's decision on the show cause order. In a footnote, the MSPB asserted that the sole issue before this court was whether Mr. Howell had shown good cause for waiver of the board's time limits.
Since it appeared to the court that petitioner was entitled to appeal on the merits in view of the statement in the February 21 order that the initial decision became final five days from the date of the order, the court, by order dated September 25, 1985, asked the MSPB to inform the court of the basis for its assertion that the sole issue was the timeliness of the petition for review to the full board. The court specifically called the board's attention to the new finality date given to the presiding official's decision. The MSPB replied that its instructions to Mr. Howell in its February order had been erroneous and that the initial decision of the presiding official became final 35 days after its issuance under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.113. MSPB further raised the spectre of interminable delays if the denial of an untimely petition for review revived the merits. The MSPB apologized for its mistake. No alternative defense on the merits was advanced although in a number of cases this practice has been followed.
On October 16, 1985, the court rendered its decision on the appeal. The court concluded that the board's order of February 21, 1985, unequivocally extended the finality of the initial decision until February 26, 1985, such extension being within its authority under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.117. Further, as the government had knowingly declined to brief the merits, the court concluded it had no alternative but to treat the merits as conceded and, therefore, reversed.
In its petition for rehearing, the MSPB brings to the attention of the court that it had filed a letter informing the clerk's office that in accordance with the court's decision in Hopkins v. MSPB, 725 F.2d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1984), the board was the proper respondent in the case. In Hopkins, a case involving the filing of a petition for attorney fees which the board denied for untimeliness, the court held that, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(a)(2), "the agency responsible for taking the action being appealed was the proper respondent." Justice and MSPB decided that the instant appeal was a Hopkins-type case and only the MSPB responded. In its petition for review, the MSPB reargues the matter of whether the time for filing an appeal to this court had been extended.
The time for filing for judicial review is fixed by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(b)(1), which provides, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review [to Federal Circuit 2] must be filed within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.
Thus, the time for judicial review runs from notice of finality. The first possible "notice" is contained in the presiding official's decision itself, namely, the notice that the decision will become final on a particular date. By regulation, the first possible final date is 35 days from the date of issuance. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.113. If nothing is done to avoid finality, the period for judicial review begins running. However, the board may extend the time even after the finality date and accept a late-filed petition for review for good cause. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.113 and 1021.117.
The question then arises whether a late filed petition to the board filed within the 30-day period for judicial appeal has any effect on that 30-day time period. That question has not been decided by the court. In this case it was not necessary to do so because the board by its own order extended the time for appealing to the court by changing the finality date of the presiding official's decision. We observe, however, that the presiding official's notice to a petitioner on judicial appeal rights advises that no judicial appeal may be taken while the case is pending before the MSPB. Thus, the filing before the board within the judicial appeal period must be deemed to keep the matter "pending" before the board and preclude the appeal. In effect, the period for judicial appeal is tolled while the matter is being considered by the full board. A petitioner cannot be precluded from filing and at the same time be required to file a judicial appeal.
The court is deeply concerned about having the judicial appeal rights of an employee cut off with respect to the merits by reason of confusing rules. As indicated in Strickland v. MSPB, 748 F.2d 681, 683-84 (Fed.Cir.1984):
Respondent also argues that judicial review by this court of the initial decision is barred. Respondent's premise is that the initial decision became final on December 14, 1982 (at the end of the 35 day time limit). Thus, the argument runs, because the petitioner had only 30 days thereafter to seek judicial review, but did not file an appeal until May 7, 1984. The appeal was untimely. We reject the premise and the conclusion.
Finality of an initial decision is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spruill v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
...both on the merits of an agency's action and on the MSPB procedures....' " 951 F.2d at 1252. See, e.g., Howell v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 785 F.2d 282, 285 (Fed.Cir.1986). The Amin court concluded, "[t]herefore, we hold that in cases where, as in this case, the appeal from the Board's......
-
Hagmeyer v. Department of Treasury
...rule, that decision has generated some confusion and/or criticism in later cases as illustrated below. In Howell v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 785 F.2d 282 (Fed.Cir.1986), after an initial decision sustaining the agency action, petitioner filed an untimely appeal to the full board. In the o......
-
Abbott v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services
...any or all issues, and "[a] case is decided on the issues formally advanced by the parties in their briefs." Howell v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 785 F.2d 282, 285 (Fed.Cir.1986) (Where the government asserted that the only issue before the court was jurisdiction, it thereby conceded the me......
-
Swick v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
...Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1578 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("we do not review what [a party] chooses to accept"); Howell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 785 F.2d 282, 285 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the Department of Justice has authority to waive the merits of a case). Thus, the Swicks possessed a reasonable......