Abou-Hussein v. Department of the Navy , 640 F. App'x 897 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    HAMDY ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN,
    Petitioner
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
    Respondent
    ______________________
    2015-3057
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. AT-0752-13-6851-I-1.
    ______________________
    Decided: February 11, 2016
    ______________________
    HAMDY ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, North Charleston, SC,
    pro se.
    RUSSELL JAMES UPTON, Commercial Litigation
    Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
    Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represent-
    ed by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
    REGINALD T. BLADES, JR.
    ______________________
    2                            ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Petitioner Hamdy Alex Abou-Hussein appeals a final
    decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”),
    which affirmed the Department of the Navy’s (“Navy”)
    decision to remove him from his post. See Hamdy A.
    Abou-Hussein v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. AT-0752-13-6851-
    I-1 (Nov. 5, 2014) (Final Order) (Resp’t’s App. 1–10);
    Hamdy A. Abou-Hussein v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. AT-
    0752-13-6851-I-1 (Mar. 18, 2014) (Initial Decision)
    (Resp’t’s App. 13–19). For the reasons set forth below, we
    affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Mr. Abou-Hussein served as a Mechanical Engineer
    at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in
    Charleston, South Carolina. In 2013 the Navy removed
    him from his post, citing “misconduct.” Resp’t’s App. 107,
    111. Mr. Abou-Hussein challenged the removal before the
    MSPB.
    In an Initial Decision, an MSPB administrative judge
    (“AJ”) found the Navy had established, by a preponder-
    ance of the evidence, that Mr. Abou-Hussein had engaged
    in disrespectful conduct toward his supervisor, failed to
    carry out his supervisor’s instructions to complete certain
    paperwork and travel outside the United States as part of
    his job, and “failed to cooperate in a pre-action investiga-
    tive discussion” with his second-level supervisor, Michael
    Johnson. 
    Id. at 15–16.
    The AJ further found Mr. Abou-
    Hussein failed to establish the Navy retaliated against
    him for whistleblowing, noting “he failed to submit any
    evidence” to support such a claim. 
    Id. at 17.
         In addition, the AJ found the removal promoted the
    efficiency of the service and constituted a reasonable
    ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY                        3
    penalty under the circumstances. Those circumstances
    included that Mr. Abou-Hussein: (1) “intentionally failed
    to perform duties of his position”; (2) “provided no excuse
    for his refusal to travel abroad”; and (3) had previously
    been reprimanded and suspended based on workplace
    behavior. 
    Id. at 19.
    Mr. Abou-Hussein petitioned the
    MSPB for review of the AJ’s Initial Decision, and a three-
    member panel of the MSPB affirmed, issuing a Final
    Order that declared the AJ’s Initial Decision to be the
    MSPB’s final decision. Mr. Abou-Hussein timely appeals.
    This court has jurisdiction over final decisions of the
    MSPB under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2012).
    DISCUSSION
    I. Standard of Review
    When reviewing final decisions of the MSPB, “th[is]
    court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set
    aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions” that are
    “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
    wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
    procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
    been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evi-
    dence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2012). We review the MSPB’s
    legal determinations de novo. Welshans v. U.S. Postal
    Serv., 
    550 F.3d 1100
    , 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
    II. The MSPB’s Final Decision Affirming the Navy’s
    Removal of Mr. Abou-Hussein Was Supported by Sub-
    stantial Evidence
    In the Initial Decision (which became the MSPB’s fi-
    nal decision), the AJ considered the Navy’s allegations of
    Mr. Abou-Hussein’s misconduct and found they were
    supported by “preponderant evidence.” Resp’t’s App. 14.
    The AJ addressed the evidence at length, finding Mr.
    Abou-Hussein “did not offer any evidence to refute the
    [Navy’s] accounts of his behavior.” 
    Id. at 16.
    The AJ
    4                            ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY
    discussed, among other things, declaration testimony of
    Mr. Abou-Hussein’s supervisor Ray E. Gay and his second
    level supervisor Michael Johnson with respect to Mr.
    Abou-Hussein’s uncooperative behavior, failure to follow
    instructions, and disrespectful conduct. The AJ also
    noted testimony of the Navy’s deciding official, Com-
    mander Gary L. Morris, who described Mr. Abou-
    Hussein’s record of previous similar offenses and lack of
    behavioral improvement following an earlier fourteen-day
    suspension.
    On appeal to this court, Mr. Abou-Hussein does not
    challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
    removal, nor does he assert that removal was an unrea-
    sonable remedy that was disproportionate to his miscon-
    duct. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. 7 (stating “[t]he case is about
    whether the Navy’s pre-removal retaliatory conduct is
    discoverable when a Federal employee [i.e., Mr. Abou-
    Hussein] is on a terrorist watch list despite the fact
    that . . . his security clearance” was not revoked), 16
    (asserting “the AJ acted in retaliation” against Mr. Abou-
    Hussein (capitalization omitted)), 18 (arguing Mr. Abou-
    Hussein’s “right to discovery” in light of his asserted
    status as a whistleblower (capitalization omitted)).
    Because Mr. Abou-Hussein does not challenge the suffi-
    ciency of the evidence, and in light of the testimony of
    Messrs. Gay, Johnson, and Morris, we conclude the AJ’s
    decision to affirm the Navy’s removal of Mr. Abou-
    Hussein was “supported by such relevant evidence as a
    reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
    conclusion, i.e., substantial evidence.” Gallagher v. Dep’t
    of the Treasury, 
    274 F.3d 1331
    , 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We
    further conclude the MSBP did not abuse its discretion in
    determining the Navy’s action in removing Mr. Abou-
    Hussein was reasonable.
    ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY                       5
    III. Mr. Abou-Hussein’s Assertions of Error
    Mr. Abou-Hussein makes several assertions of error.
    First, he asserts he was improperly denied a hearing
    when, after he failed to appear for a hearing on December
    2, 2013, the AJ rejected his request to reschedule and
    instead “decided [the appeal] based upon the documentary
    submissions of the parties.” Resp’t’s App. 38. Mr. Abou-
    Hussein explains he “[notified] the AJ five (5) days before
    the scheduled hearing,” which was to take place in
    Charleston, South Carolina, “that [a] snow blizzard and
    snow accumulation is preventing him from driving down
    the mountains” near Hendersonville, North Carolina,
    where he was “stranded.” Pet’r’s Br. 16; see also 
    id. at 11–
    12; Reply Br. 3–4. He further notes that “when the snow
    partially melted and rural roads became passable, [he]
    chose to attempt to reach the much nearer Atlanta Re-
    gional Office to prove by his appearance that he is not
    foregoing his due process right to a hearing.” 
    Id. at 16.
        A motion for postponement will be granted “only upon
    a showing of good cause.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.51 (2015).
    Here, after Mr. Abou-Hussein failed to appear, the AJ
    issued a show cause order. She considered his assertions
    with respect to the inclement weather but concluded he
    had “failed to establish good cause for his absence,”
    Resp’t’s App. 13, because, “given his representation that
    on the day of the hearing, he appeared in Atlanta for the
    hearing, the weather obviously did not affect his ability to
    travel,” 
    id. at 38.
    1 The AJ’s denial of Mr. Abou-Hussein’s
    request to reschedule therefore was not arbitrary, and
    1    She further noted Mr. Abou-Hussein’s motion to
    postpone was filed “on November 27, the eve of Thanks-
    giving,” and that she “did not receive a copy of the motion”
    until she arrived “at the hearing site on the day of the
    hearing.” 
    Id. at 37.
    6                            ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY
    affirmance of the AJ’s decision by the MSPB panel did not
    constitute an abuse of discretion.
    Mr. Abou-Hussein also asserts the AJ was biased and
    should have been disqualified because her “office was
    subject to an investigation by its own Inspector General”
    as a result of “[Mr.] Abou-Hussein’s 2011 complaint.”
    Pet’r’s Br. 17; see Pet’r’s App. 55 (letter from the MSPB
    Office of the General Counsel to Mr. Abou-Hussein,
    addressing his allegations that the MSPB engaged in
    “spoliation of evidence of Criminal Assault on [Mr. Abou-
    Hussein’s] person” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    As this court has explained,
    “opinions formed by [a] judge on the basis of facts
    introduced or events occurring in the course of the
    current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do
    not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality mo-
    tion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism
    or antagonism that would make fair judgment
    impossible.”
    Bieber v. Dep’t of the Army, 
    287 F.3d 1358
    , 1362 (Fed. Cir.
    2002) (alterations omitted) (emphasis removed) (quoting
    Liteky v. United States, 
    510 U.S. 540
    , 555 (1994)). The
    MSPB considered this standard and concluded Mr. Abou-
    Hussein had not made such a showing.
    On appeal to this court, Mr. Abou-Hussein makes a
    similar argument, asserting deep-seated antagonism was
    created by “the earlier spoliated audio in the past [pre-
    hearing conference] controversy,” in “which the same AJ
    dismissed [Mr.] Abou-Hussein’s . . . appeal.” Pet’r’s Br. 9;
    see also 
    id. at 17
    (asserting “the [MSPB] missed its own
    binding regulations as they apply to the disqualification of
    an [AJ] whose office was subject to an investigation by its
    own Inspector General”). He explains that during that
    pre-hearing conference, which occurred in 2010 and which
    was related to a previous action that is not directly a part
    ABOU-HUSSEIN   v. DEP’T OF THE NAVY                        7
    of the present appeal, “the Navy attorney approving
    [certain allegedly] fraudulent subcontracts . . . made a
    death threat [against Mr. Abou-Hussein], and the Atlanta
    [MSPB] Judges erased six (6) minutes of audio recorded
    by their phone conferencing system.” 
    Id. at 14.
    In the
    present proceeding, the full panel of the MSPB considered
    Mr. Abou-Hussein’s assertion of bias and concluded he
    “ha[d] not shown that the [AJ] committed an error or
    otherwise abused her discretion.” Resp’t’s App. 7.
    Although Mr. Abou-Hussein points to his role in
    bringing about the “MSPB [Inspector General’s] investi-
    gation of the AJ Atlanta office,” Pet’r’s Br. 17, he does not
    identify any record evidence demonstrating the “‘opinions
    formed by the judge,’” in this case by the AJ, “‘display a
    deep-seated . . . antagonism.’” 
    Bieber, 287 F.3d at 1362
    (alteration omitted) (emphasis modified) (quoting 
    Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555
    ). Although he notes the AJ’s dismissal of
    his previous appeal, a dismissal without more does not
    suggest antagonism.
    Mr. Abou-Hussein further asserts “the [MSPB] ig-
    nored his motion” for recusal of the AJ, and that the
    “Initial Decision is premature until all outstanding mo-
    tions are resolved.” Pet’r’s Br. 18. Given Mr. Abou-
    Hussein’s acknowledgement that the “AJ[] deni[ed] . . .
    the motion,” 
    id., we see
    no basis for his assertion that the
    motion had not been resolved at the time of the Initial
    Decision.
    CONCLUSION
    We have considered Mr. Abou-Hussein’s remaining
    arguments and find them unpersuasive. For these rea-
    sons, the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board
    is
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-3057

Citation Numbers: 640 F. App'x 897

Judges: Prost, Dyk, Wallach

Filed Date: 2/11/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024