Chin-Young v. Army

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2023
• Docket: 23-1587
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-1587 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHRISTOPHER R. CHIN-YOUNG, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________

2023-1587 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-11-0394-C-3. ______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s order to show cause, Chris- topher R. Chin-Young urges the court not to dismiss, con- tends that the Department of the Army is not the proper respondent, and requests consolidation with two of his other pending appeals. The Department of the Army re- sponds in favor of dismissal of this petition as untimely. After unsuccessfully challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s September 2016 final decision in the re- gional circuit, see Chin-Young v. United States, 816 F. Case: 23-1587 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2023

App’x 857 (4th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal), Mr. Chin- Young filed this petition in March 2023 seeking review of that decision. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition must be filed “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the fi- nal . . . decision,” and this deadline is mandatory and juris- dictional, Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, over six years have passed since the Board’s final decision. Our precedent further re- quires that we reject Mr. Chin-Young’s arguments for eq- uitable tolling. Id. To the extent Mr. Chin-Young seeks review of the district court’s or the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision, we similarly lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Because we lack ju- risdiction, Mr. Chin-Young’s arguments as to the proper re- spondent and consolidation are moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) Any pending motions are denied as moot. FOR THE COURT

June 8, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Date Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court