Background
William Hollins petitioned for Federal Circuit review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Postal Service, Hollins’s employing agency, moved to modify the case caption to designate the Board as the respondent. The Board consented.
The Postal Service also sought additional time for the Board to file its response brief. Meanwhile, Hollins failed to submit the docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and failed to file Federal Circuit Form 10, the required Statement Concerning Discrimination.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit granted the request to modify the caption, explaining that 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2) makes the Board the proper respondent when its decision concerns its own procedure or jurisdiction. Because the Board dismissed Hollins’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction rather than reaching the merits of the underlying personnel action, the court designated the Board—not the Postal Service—as respondent.
The court dismissed the petition because Hollins did not file the Statement Concerning Discrimination required by Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3) and did not pay the docketing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis as required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(d). The order was designated nonprecedential.
Key Takeaways
- The MSPB is the proper respondent when the challenged Board decision rests on procedure or jurisdiction.
- The employing agency is the proper respondent when the Board reaches the merits of the underlying personnel action.
- Failure to submit required forms and either pay the docketing fee or seek in forma pauperis status can result in dismissal.
Why It Matters
The order underscores two threshold requirements in Federal Circuit review of MSPB matters: naming the respondent dictated by the basis of the Board’s decision and completing the court’s mandatory filing requirements. A jurisdictional dismissal by the Board calls for naming the Board as respondent, while failure to cure basic filing omissions can end the case before merits briefing begins.