Hooks v. Merit Systems Protection Board
This text of Hooks v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Hooks v. Merit Systems Protection Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3079
PATRICIA HOOKS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0752070959-I-1.
ON MOTION
Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Patricia Hooks moves for an extension of time to file her brief. The Merit Systems
Protection Board moves for leave to intervene for purposes of moving to reform the
caption to designate the Board as respondent. The Board states that the Department of
the Interior opposes.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent
when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The
employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits of
the underlying case.
Hooks filed an appeal alleging that her resignation was involuntary. The
Administrative Judge determined that Hooks had not demonstrated that her resignation
was involuntary and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board held that it did not have jurisdiction, it did not address the merits of the case. See Garcia v.
Department of Homeland Security, 437 F.3d 1322, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) ("In a
constructive action case, the jurisdictional fact at issue is almost always whether the
facially voluntary action was involuntary. Involuntariness is essential for jurisdiction and it
must be proven by the claimant. But while jurisdiction is established under 5 U.S.C. §
7512, the merits of the case are determined by the agency's compliance with § 7513(a)-
(b). In other words, the jurisdictional determination is not identical to the merits
determination"). Thus, the Board is the proper respondent.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Hooks' motion for an extension of time is granted. Hooks' brief is due within
60 days of the date of filing of this order. No further extensions should be anticipated.
The Board's motion to reform the caption is granted. The revised official
caption is reflected above.
FOR THE COURT
MAR 2 0 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly FILED Clerk U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUff
cc: Willie C. Weaver, Sr., Esq. James P. Connor, Esq. MAR 2 0 2009 Calvin M. Morrow, Esq. CLERK s17
2009-3079 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hooks v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-merit-systems-protection-board-cafc-2009.