Saxiones v. MSPB ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    EMMANUEL S. SAXIONES,
    Petitioner
    v.
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2017-2308
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. DA-0831-17-0169-I-1.
    ______________________
    Decided: May 15, 2018
    ______________________
    NORMAN JACKMAN, Jackman & Roth, LLP, Lincoln,
    NH, argued for petitioner.
    KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel,
    Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued
    for respondent.   Also represented by KATHERINE M.
    SMITH.
    ______________________
    Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
    2                                          SAXIONES   v. MSPB
    LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
    Emmanuel S. Saxiones (“Saxiones”) appeals from the
    decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the
    “Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    Saxiones v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-17-0169-I-
    1, slip op. (M.S.P.B. Apr. 14, 2017). Because we conclude
    Saxiones’s appeal is moot, we dismiss.
    The primary issue before the administrative judge
    (“AJ”) was whether Saxiones was entitled to make a
    deposit in order to receive credit relating to his retirement
    annuity for his post-1956 military service. The U.S.
    Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had not ren-
    dered a final decision on this issue, and the AJ concluded
    that no exception to the finality requirement applied,
    even though Saxiones’s case remained unresolved over
    four years after he had filed his initial appeal to make a
    military service deposit. Accordingly, the AJ dismissed
    Saxiones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id., slip op. at
    3–5. Saxiones did not appeal that decision to the Board,
    so the AJ’s decision became that of the Board. This
    appeal followed.
    Shortly before oral argument in the present appeal,
    OPM calculated the deposit due for Saxiones’s military
    service, agreed to pay Saxiones the amount he was un-
    derpaid during the period of March 1, 2013 through
    March 31, 2018, and stated that annuity payments going
    forward would be calculated with credit given to Saxi-
    ones’s military service. Board’s Notice of Supplemental
    Authority at 2–3, Saxiones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., No.
    2017-2308 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2018), ECF No. 47. Based
    on OPM’s letter, the Board requests that we dismiss the
    appeal as moot. Id. at 1. Saxiones responds that other
    issues remain, including the proper calculation of pre-
    judgment interest, attorney fees, and his “High-Three,” so
    the case is not moot. Saxiones Response to Board’s Notice
    SAXIONES   v. MSPB                                        3
    of Supplemental Authority, Saxiones v. Merit Sys. Prot.
    Bd., No. 2017-2308 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2018), ECF No. 49.
    We agree with the Board and dismiss the appeal as
    moot. It appears that OPM has granted Saxiones the
    relief he seeks regarding the deposit, so there is no longer
    a live case or controversy on that issue before us. See
    DeFunis v. Odegaard, 
    416 U.S. 312
    , 316 (1974) (“[F]ederal
    courts are without power to decide questions that cannot
    affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.”
    (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nasatka v. Delta Sci.
    Corp., 
    58 F.3d 1578
    , 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“If an event
    occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it
    impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief
    whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dis-
    missed as moot.” (quoting Church of Scientology v. United
    States, 
    506 U.S. 9
    , 12 (1992))). The other issues men-
    tioned by Saxiones were not properly before the AJ and
    accordingly neither OPM nor the AJ decided them on the
    merits during the course of this appeal. We do not resolve
    them here in the first instance.
    If Saxiones has additional challenges to OPM’s annui-
    ty determinations or to its timely compliance with the
    assurances in its recent letter, then he may pursue them
    in the proper course. Given the substantial delay in this
    case that has already occurred, we expect OPM to now
    proceed expeditiously in fulfilling its obligations.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal as
    moot.
    DISMISSED
    COSTS
    Costs to Saxiones.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2308

Filed Date: 5/15/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021