Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Neal Kenneth Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board

759 F.2d 9

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1985-04-04
Topic: general

recognizing that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | recognizing that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | recognizing that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by l aw, rule, or regulation | recognizing that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | recognizing that the Board’s jurisdiction is not plenary; it is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | explaining that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | noting that the MSPB does not possess plenary jurisdiction but rather operates within a clearly delineated scope of authority | determining that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | determining that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | finding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | finding that a reassignment without loss of grade or pay is not an appealable action | explaining that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s authority is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | explaining that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the 17 Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s authority is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stating that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | finding that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which it has been given jurisdiction by law, rule, or regulation | stati

Citator

Cited by: 179 opinions

MADDOX v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BD.,759 F.2d 9(Fed. Cir. 1985)

NEAL KENNETH MADDOX, PETITIONER, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

RESPONDENT.

Appeal No. 85-657.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 1985.

Neal Kenneth Maddox, pro se.Page 10

Evangeline W. Swift, Gen. Counsel, Mary L. Jennings, Associate Gen. Counsel for Litigation and Bruce L. Moyer, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, D.C., submitted for respondent.

Appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Before FRIEDMAN, BENNETT, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

BENNETT, Circuit Judge.

[1] Neal K. Maddox, pro se, appeals the final decision, No. DA34438410202, of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), effective August 7, 1984, in which it denied review, made final its presiding official's decision that the MSPB had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and dismissed the appeal to the MSPB. 22 M.S.P.R. 654. We affirm.

[2] Maddox worked for the Department of Housing Urban Development as a supervisory loan specialist (realty), GS-13, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The department reassigned him to San Antonio, Texas, with the same grade, pay, and title, effective June 13, 1983. Maddox alleges that the reassignment violated his "veterans preference rights, legal rights, and seniority rights."^fn*

[3] The jurisdiction of the MSPB is not plenary but is limited to those actions which are made appealable to it by law, rule, or regulation.5 U.S.C. § 1205(a)(1),7701(a) (1982).Cowan v.United States,710 F.2d 803,805(Fed. Cir. 1983);Thomas v.United States,709 F.2d 48,49(Fed. Cir. 1983).5 U.S.C. § 7512(1982) enumerates the actions appealable to the MSPB, as follows:

(1) a removal;

(2) a suspension for more than 14 days;

(3) a reduction in grade;

(4) a reduction in pay; and

(5) a furlough of 30 days or less.

[4]See also5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a) (1983).

[5] Since the reassignment did not reduce Maddox's grade or pay, section 7512 does not confer the requisite authority to hear the appeal on any of the grounds relied on by Maddox. The MSPB lacks jurisdiction of such grounds where the underlying action complained of is not within the board's jurisdiction. Plainly, the unsubstantiated allegations asserted here do not provide any independent source of jurisdiction to the MSPB. The same is true when it comes to judicial review. If the MSPB does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we, except to the extent that we always have the inherent power to determine our own jurisdiction and that of the board.Manning v. Merit Systems ProtectionBoard,742 F.2d 1424,1427(Fed. Cir. 1984);Rosano v.Department of the Navy,699 F.2d 1315,1318(Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner has the burden of showing to the MSPB that it has jurisdiction.5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2) (1983);Stern v.Department of the Army,699 F.2d 1312,1314(Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not met that burden here, either at the MSPB or the court level. We review final decisions of the MSPB pursuant to the strictures of5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). By those guidelines and limitations upon our jurisdiction, we affirm.

[6] AFFIRMED.

Respondent states that Maddox also asserts prohibited personnel practices under5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)-2302(b)(10), allegedly taken in reprisal for a grievance Maddox had filed. We do not find the allegations in petitioner's brief nor are they discussed in the MSPB opinions. ↩