Opinion

LaKeeva Osborne v. Department of Justice

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Feb 28, 2025
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 34.3%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

LAKEEVA OSBORNE, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DE-0432-24-0074-I-1

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DATE: February 28, 2025

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

LaKeeva Osborne , Denver, Colorado, pro se.

Lisa Leontiev-Koch , Esquire, Judson R. Peverall , Esquire, and Luke

Archer , Esquire, Springfield, Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed her chapter 43 removal. For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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).

petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown.

5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

BACKGROUND

Effective September 7, 2023, the agency removed the appellant from her

position as a GS-7 Purchasing Agent for unacceptable performance. Initial

Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 25-27. She appealed her removal to the Board. IAF,

Tab 1. Based on the written record, IAF, Tab 9 at 3, the administrative judge

issued an April 4, 2024 initial decision sustaining the appellant’s removal, IAF,

Tab 16, Initial Decision (ID) at 2, 28. The administrative judge notified the

appellant that the initial decision would become final on May 9, 2024, unless a

petition for review was filed by that date. ID at 28.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

On May 10, 2024, the appellant electronically filed a petition for review of

the initial decision. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. The Office of the

Clerk of the Board notified the appellant that her petition for review was untimely

and explained that she must file a motion asking the Board to accept the petition

for review as timely or to waive the time limit for good cause. PFR File, Tab 2

at 1. The agency thereafter filed a response, arguing that the appellant’s petition

for review was untimely filed and that the appellant had failed to file a motion

asking the Board to accept the petition for review as timely or to waive the time

limit. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4-8. The appellant did not respond to either of these

warnings about the untimeliness of her petition.

A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the issuance of the

initial decision, or, if the petitioner shows that she received the initial decision

more than 5 days after the date of the issuance, within 30 days after the date she

received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial decision

was issued on April 4, 2024, and electronically sent to the appellant the same day.

ID at 36. The appellant does not allege that she did not receive the initial

decision within 5 days of its issuance; accordingly, her petition for review is

untimely by 1 day. PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).

The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only

upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g).

To establish good cause for an untimely filing, the appellant must show that she

exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular circumstances

of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980).

In determining whether there is good cause, the Board considers the length of the

delay, the reasonableness of the excuse and showing of due diligence, whether the

appellant is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented evidence of the

existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her ability to comply

with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that similarly shows

a causal relationship to her inability to file a timely petition. See Wyeroski v.

Department of Transportation, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 7, aff’d, 253 F. App’x 950 (Fed.

Cir. 2007).

We find that the appellant has not demonstrated good cause for the

untimely filing of her petition for review. Although the appellant is pro se and

her 1-day delay is not lengthy, the appellant provides no explanation for her late

filing despite being given an opportunity to do so. The Board has consistently

denied a waiver of the filing deadline if a good reason for the delay is not shown,

even when the delay is minimal and the appellant is pro se. See, e.g., Gaetos v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 201, ¶ 6 (2014) (dismissing a

petition for review that was 3 ½ hours late when the appellant did not address the

untimeliness of her petition); Lockhart v. Office of Personnel Management,

94 M.S.P.R. 396, ¶¶ 7-8 (2003) (declining to excuse a 5-day filing delay when the

pro se appellant failed to show good cause for the delay). The appellant’s failure

to address the timeliness of her petition for review and the lack of evidence of

circumstances beyond her control or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune that

prevented her from filing a timely petition for review weigh against finding good

cause.

Moreover, neither the argument contained in the appellant’s petition for

review nor the documents she provides therewith establish good cause for her

untimeliness. 2 The appellant’s arguments do not address the filing delay; instead,

the appellant challenges the merits of the agency’s removal action and disagrees

with the administrative judge’s findings. PFR File, Tab 1; see Guevara v.

Department of the Navy, 112 M.S.P.R. 39, ¶ 7 (2009) (finding that the appellant

failed to establish good cause for his untimely filed petition for review when he

merely argued the merits of the agency’s removal action). Additionally, the

documents she provides with her petition for review, which include annotated

emails and a medical article, are not discernably related to her filing delay and

similarly appear to challenge the merits of the agency’s removal action.

Moreover, all of these documents appear to predate the initial decision. See

Wilson v. General Services Administration, 15 M.S.P.R. 45, 47 (1983) (finding

that the appellant had not shown good cause for his untimeliness because, among

other things, he failed to show that the “new” information on which he relied was

unavailable, despite due diligence, before the record closed).

While submitting her petition for review, the appellant was informed that the finality

date for the initial decision had passed. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. 3 This is

the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness

of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the

Board regarding the removal appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4

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

Even if the appellant had timely filed her petition for review or established good cause

for its untimeliness, the petition does not provide any basis for disturbing the initial

decision. The appellant identified various portions of the initial decision with which

she disagrees, but she has not included references to evidence of record or legal

authority establishing error on the part of the administrative judge. PFR File, Tab 1

at 4-39; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(b) (providing that a petition for review must state a

party’s objections to the initial decision, including all of the party’s legal and factual

arguments, and must be supported by specific references to the record and any

applicable laws or regulations). The appellant also attached evidence to her petition,

but it is unexplained and its relevance to the disputed issues at hand is not apparent.

PFR File, Tab 1 at 40-82. Moreover, to the extent that any of the attached evidence is

presented for the first time on review, the appellant has not shown that it was previously

unavailable. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 213-14 (1980) (under

5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board generally will not consider evidence submitted for the

first time with a petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the

record was closed before the administrative judge despite the party’s due diligence).

Thus, the petition for review is unavailing on the merits.

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.

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:

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

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

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. 5 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).

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.

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