`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CHARLES E. ALLEN,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
`Respondent
`______________________
`
`2018-1649
`______________________
`
`Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
`Board in No. SF-0752-08-0343-I-1.
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and REYNA, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`ORDER
`On September 26, 2018, we issued to the parties an
`order to show cause why Charles E. Allen’s petition for
`review should not be dismissed as untimely. Specifically,
`we noted that Allen’s petition for review was filed 72 days
`from the date of the letter that Allen seeks this court to
`review. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), Allen’s petition
`should have been filed 60 days from the date of the letter.
`
`
`
`2
`
`ALLEN v. MSPB
`
`On October 19, 2018, the Board filed its response, ar-
`guing that the petition for review is untimely under
`§ 7703(b)(1)(A). On October 25, 2018, Allen filed a motion
`for continuance to show cause, explaining that he secured
`legal counsel and needed additional time for counsel to
`review the case and prepare a response. The court grant-
`ed Allen’s request.
`On November 30, 2018, Allen, now represented by
`counsel, filed a response making two arguments. First,
`Allen maintains that the court’s order to show cause is
`unclear as to the basis relied on by this court for its
`timeliness
`concerns.
` Second, Allen urges
`that
`“[f]undamental fairness requires the court to look beyond
`the technical application of statutory rules regarding
`‘time’ and grant [his] request for judicial review.” Pet.
`Response at 3. Both arguments are without merit.
`In the order to show cause, we identified the specific
`factual and legal basis giving rise to the concern of
`whether Allen’s petition is timely filed. Allen does not
`challenge that basis or offer an alternative by which this
`court should determine if the filing date of the petition
`satisfies § 7703(b)(1)(A). Allen’s principal argument is
`that it would be unfair to rely on “a mere technicality to
`deny [his] request for review.” Pet. Response at 3. But
`Allen fails to provide any legal basis that allows this court
`to forgo the requirements of § 7703(b)(1)(A). See Oja v.
`Dep’t of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1358–60 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(holding
`compliance with
`the
`filing deadline of
`§ 7703(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling and is a
`prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction); Fedora v.
`Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(citing Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336
`(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
`
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`
`
`ALLEN v. MSPB
`
`3
`
`(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
`(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`December 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
`
`
`
`
` Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
