Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 12/22/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ELLIS R. STANLEY,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent
______________________
2022-2110
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DE-0752-20-0362-I-1.
______________________
Decided: December 22, 2023
______________________
ELLIS R. STANLEY, Colorado Springs, CO, pro se.
ROBERT C. BIGLER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 12/22/2023
2 STANLEY v. DOJ
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Ellis R. Stanley requests review of a Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming the Depart-
ment of Justice’s removal of Mr. Stanley for misconduct
from his position of Correctional Treatment Specialist
(Case Manager) GS-0101-11, in the Bureau of Prisons.
Stanley v. Dep’t of Just., No. DE-0752-20-0362-I-1,
2022
WL 2297101 (M.S.P.B. June 21, 2022) (“Decision”) (Resp’t’s
App. 5–25). 1 We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Prior to his removal, Mr. Stanley served as a Correc-
tional Treatment Specialist stationed at the Federal Cor-
rectional Facility Florence (“FCC Florence”), Bureau of
Prisons, in Florence, Colorado. Decision at 2. He had over
fifteen years of federal service and no record of discipline
prior to the events leading to his removal.
Id.
On July 15, 2019, Mr. Stanley’s supervisor gave him
notice of his proposed removal from his position based on
three charges: (1) “appearance of an inappropriate rela-
tionship with an inmate,” (2) “giving or offering an unau-
thorized article or favor to any inmate,” and (3) “failure to
immediately report inmate misconduct.” Decision at 2;
Resp’t’s App. 40, 48–50. Each charge was a violation of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Program Statement No.
3420.11, Standards of Employee Conduct. See Resp’t’s
App. 26–33. The charges relate to an investigation into
events that occurred in 2018. See id. at 40. After Mr. Stan-
ley submitted written and oral responses to the notice of
his proposed removal, FCC Florence Warden Eric Williams
1 Because the reported version of the Board’s deci-
sion is not paginated, citations in this opinion are to the
version of the Board’s decision included in the Respond-
ent’s Appendix. For example, Decision at 1 is found at Re-
spondent’s Appendix 5.
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 12/22/2023
STANLEY v. DOJ 3
issued a decision affirming all three charges and the pen-
alty of removal. Decision at 2; Resp’t’s App. 52–53. Mr.
Stanley was removed from his position on September 6,
2019. Resp’t’s App. 53.
Mr. Stanley appealed to the Board, which sustained
the agency’s charges and affirmed the removal action. De-
cision at 2. In its decision, the Board addressed each of the
misconduct charges, finding the agency proved each by a
preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 5 (sustaining
charge one); id. at 7 (sustaining charge two); id. at 8 (sus-
taining charge three). The Board concluded that the
agency had established the requisite nexus between the
disciplinary action taken and promoting the efficiency of
service. Id. at 11. Finally, the Board found removal was
justified under the circumstances, noting Warden Williams
had considered aggravating and mitigating factors in
reaching his decision that removal was the appropriate
penalty. Id. at 12–13.
The Board considered Mr. Stanley’s argument that “the
agency committed harmful [procedural] error by (1) failing
to conduct a timely, fair, and impartial investigation into
the allegations forming the basis of his removal and (2) fail-
ing to timely conduct an investigation and disciplinary pro-
cess.” Id. at 8. As to the first alleged error, the Board found
that Mr. Stanley “failed to identify with any specificity as
to why the investigation was unfair or inappropriate.” Id.
at 9. As to the second alleged error, the Board found that
Mr. Stanley did not provide credible evidence that any de-
lay in the investigation was harmful and would have
caused the agency to reach a different outcome. Id. The
Board thus rejected both challenges and found that Mr.
Stanley failed to meet his burden of proving harmful error.
The Board then turned to Mr. Stanley’s affirmative de-
fenses of discrimination based upon race, sex, disability,
and reprisal. Id. at 10. Here, the Board determined that
Mr. Stanley failed to meet his burden to prove
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 12/22/2023
4 STANLEY v. DOJ
discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, finding
that he submitted no credible evidence to support his alle-
gations. Id.
The Board’s decision became final on July 26, 2022. See
id. at 13. Mr. Stanley now appeals from the final decision.
We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II. DISCUSSION
We set aside a Board decision if it is “(1) arbitrary, ca-
pricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-
ance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by
law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsup-
ported by substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see also
Standley v. Dep’t of Energy,
26 F.4th 937, 942 (Fed. Cir.
2022), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 2873 (2022). Substantial ev-
idence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Stand-
ley, 26 F.4th at 942 (citation omitted).
Mr. Stanley raises several arguments on appeal. First,
he argues that the agency failed to conduct a timely inves-
tigation in violation of agency policy. See Pet’r’s Br. 2–3.
Second, he asserts that his removal was retaliation for
complaints he filed with the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission. See Pet’r’s Reply Br. 8–9. Lastly, he
argues he was double-disciplined because he was reas-
signed before his removal. Id. at 9–10. We address each
argument in turn.
A. Procedural Error
On appeal, Mr. Stanley again argues that the agency
committed a harmful procedural error by failing to conduct
its investigation within the time limit established by a
“mandatory personnel policy.” See Pet’r’s Br. 2. Specifi-
cally, he argues that the agency was required to complete
its investigation within ninety days, and the agency failed
to do so. See id. The government responds that there is no
evidence in the record of any such mandatory deadline.
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 12/22/2023
STANLEY v. DOJ 5
Resp’t’s Br. 20. Regardless, Mr. Stanley’s argument still
falls short because he does not demonstrate that any such
error was harmful.
The Board may not sustain an agency’s decision if the
employee “shows harmful error in the application of the
agency’s procedures in arriving at such [a] decision.” Cor-
nelius v. Nutt,
472 U.S. 648, 650 (1985) (citing
5 U.S.C.
§ 7701(c)(2)(A)). An employee must prove that any proce-
dural error was harmful. See
5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(c)(1).
Such an error is harmful if it “is likely to have caused the
agency to reach a conclusion different from the one it would
have reached in the absence or cure of the error.”
Id.
§ 1201.4(r); see Villareal v. Bureau of Prisons,
901 F.3d
1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Mr. Stanley’s case, the
Board found that Mr. Stanley “failed to provide any credi-
ble evidence” that any delay had a “harmful effect upon the
outcome of the case” or was “likely to have caused the
agency to reach a [different] conclusion.” Decision at 9.
On appeal, Mr. Stanley fails to identify any evidence in
the record that a procedure was not followed that would
have changed the outcome or that the Board’s decision was
not supported by substantial evidence. See Pet’r’s Br. 2;
Pet’r’s Reply Br. 1–2, 5–6; Pet’r’s Mem. in Lieu of Oral Arg.
1. Furthermore, the charges were supported by Mr. Stan-
ley’s own affidavits admitting to the conduct for which he
was charged. See Decision at 5–8; Resp’t’s App. 40–42 (Sep-
tember 2018 affidavit);
id. at 45–47 (October 2018 affida-
vit). The Board’s finding that Mr. Stanley failed to meet
his burden to prove harmful error is supported by the rec-
ord, and there is no procedural error that would provide a
basis for reversing or vacating the Board’s decision.
B. Additional Arguments
Although Mr. Stanley identifies only the alleged proce-
dural error in his opening brief, see Pet’r’s Br. 2–3, he raises
additional arguments in his subsequent briefing before this
court.
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 12/22/2023
6 STANLEY v. DOJ
Mr. Stanley indicates that his removal was retaliation
for complaints he has filed with the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission. See Pet’r’s Reply Br. 8–9; Pet.
Mem. in Lieu of Oral Arg. 2. We lack jurisdiction to review
“mixed cases” in which an employee alleges an adverse ac-
tion was due, at least in part, to violation of federal anti-
discrimination laws. See Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
582
U.S. 420, 437 (2017). However, Mr. Stanley waived this
argument in order to proceed with his appeal in this court.
Pet’r’s Answer to Mot. to Dismiss 1; see also Oct. 24, 2022
Order 1–2 (“Mr. Stanley now states that he ‘would like to
waive the discrimination claim in order to continue with
[his] appeal.’” (citing id.)). As directed by the Oct. 24, 2022
Order, Mr. Stanley filed the corrected Federal Circuit form
and opening brief abandoning his discrimination claims.
See Federal Circuit Form 10 (agreeing to “abandon . . . dis-
crimination claims”); Pet’r’s Br. 2–3 (asserting only the vi-
olation of a “mandatory personnel policy”). “[A] petitioner’s
explicit waiver of [his] discrimination claims in such a
[mixed] case effectively converts the case to a standard ap-
peal of the adverse personnel action—providing this court
with jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision (without
considering any discrimination claims).” Harris v. SEC,
972 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To retain jurisdiction
over this appeal, “we will hold [Mr. Stanley] to [his] formal
waiver of any discrimination or retaliation claims decided
by the MSPB.” Id. at 1319.
Mr. Stanley also argues he is “a victim of Double Jeop-
ardy, Excessive Discipline, [and] Constructive Termina-
tion.” Pet’r’s Mem. in Lieu of Oral Arg. 2. These arguments
are premised on his assertion that during the investigation
prior to his removal, he was “taken off [his] official job as a
case manager and reassigned to sitting at the control room
desk with no ability to do any work.” Id. He argues that
this reassignment constituted disciplinary punishment ris-
ing to the level of constructive termination, and that his
Case: 22-2110 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 12/22/2023
STANLEY v. DOJ 7
formal termination therefore constituted a second discipli-
nary punishment for the same conduct. Id.
Mr. Stanley forfeited these arguments by failing to
raise them before the administrative judge. 2 See Bosley v.
Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A
party in an MSPB proceeding must raise an issue before
the administrative judge if the issue is to be preserved for
review in this court.”). However, because Mr. Stanley ap-
pears pro se, we may hold his filings “to a lesser standard”
and “be less stringent in requiring that issue[s] have been
raised explicitly below.” Forshey v. Principi,
284 F.3d 1335,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by Pub. L. No. 107–330, § 402(a),
116 Stat. 2820,
2832 (2002). Even if we were to consider Mr. Stanley’s ar-
guments, they also fail on the merits because there is no
indication this initial measure was punitive. “Agencies of-
ten take steps, including reassignment, to solve problems
created by employees,” and “reassignment without a reduc-
tion in grade or pay is not [punitive].” Villareal,
901 F.3d
at 1365. Mr. Stanley does not allege that he was demoted
or that his pay was reduced. Accordingly, Mr. Stanley’s ar-
guments are unavailing.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Stanley’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Board’s final decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
2 These arguments are also forfeited because they
were not raised in the opening brief. See McIntosh v. Dep’t
of Def.,
53 F.4th 630, 641 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
