Dr. Keeshes Kearney v. Department of Justice ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
KEESHES RAGLAND KEARNEY, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DC-1221-23-0405-W-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DATE: September 30, 2024
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Delshon Harding , Butner, North Carolina, for the appellant.
Debbie Stevens and Michael O’Connell , Washington, D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
Henry J. Kerner, Member*
*Member Kerner recused himself and did not participate in the adjudication
of this appeal.
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On
petition for review, the appellant asserts, without supporting evidence or
argument, that she established Board jurisdiction over her appeal. Petition for
1
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2
Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 4. She also argues, among other things, that the
administrative judge exhibited bias in favor of the agency, that he abused his
discretion in granting the agency’s request to stay discovery deadlines and
denying her motion to compel discovery, and that his rulings were inconsistent
with the required Board procedures. 2 Generally, we grant petitions such as this
one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous
findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2 We find no merit in the appellant’s argument that the administrative judge
was biased against her and abused his discretion by denying her motion to compel
discovery and issuing an initial decision without allowing her the opportunity to
respond to the agency’s motion to strike her motion to compel. PFR File, Tab 1
at 4-8. An administrative judge has broad discretion to regulate the proceedings
before him, including the authority to rule on discovery motions, and absent an
abuse of discretion, the Board will not reverse an administrative judge’s
discovery related rulings. Kingsley v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 365, ¶
16 (2016). Additionally, an appellant is not entitled to discovery in an IRA
2
The appellant also requests that the Board sanction the agency. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8.
The appellant has not identified any behavior that would warrant the imposition of
sanctions.
3
appeal if she fails to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction. See
Sobczak v. Environmental Protection Agency, 64 M.S.P.R. 118, 122 (1994)
(stating that an appellant is entitled to discovery in an IRA appeal only when he
sets forth nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations). Further, there is a presumption
of honesty and integrity on the part of administrative judges that can only be
overcome by a substantial showing of personal bias, and the Board will not infer
bias based on an administrative judge’s case-related rulings; a party’s
disagreement with an administrative judge’s evidentiary rulings is insufficient to
show bias. Vaughn v. Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 18
(2013); Diggs v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 114 M.S.P.R.
464, ¶ 9 (2010).
¶3 Although the acknowledgment order provided the appellant with 5 calendar
days to file a response or objection to any motion, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab
2 at 4, the administrative judge issued an order staying discovery pending a
decision on the threshold jurisdictional issue in response to the parties’ requests,
IAF, Tab 7 at 4-5, Tab 8 at 5, Tab 9. Since the administrative judge ultimately
concluded that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege Board jurisdiction
over her IRA appeal, he denied her motion to compel discovery and instead
issued the initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. IAF, Tab
14, Tab 17, Initial Decision at 2, 8. Because we agree with the administrative
judge’s determination that the appellant failed to meet her jurisdictional burden,
we agree that, absent a ruling on the threshold jurisdictional issue, she was not
entitled to conduct discovery. Thus, we conclude that the appellant has failed to
prove that the administrative judge exhibited bias, abused his discretion, or
committed a procedural error that harmed her substantive rights in his discovery-
related rulings. See Vaughn, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 15; see also Karapinka v.
Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124, 127 (1981) (finding that an administrative
judge’s procedural error is of no legal consequence unless it is shown to have
adversely affected a party’s substantive rights).
4
¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.
(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
3
Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
5
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
6
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, D.C. 20013
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Suite 5SW12G
Washington, D.C. 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
7
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)
(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 4 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following
address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
4
The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
8
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.