Manga v. U.S. Small Business Administration

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0214
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARIA MANGA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00214 (UNA) U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this matter on January 24,

2025. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. On February 25, 2025, the Court entered an Order (“Ord.”),

ECF No. 4, finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint was vague and failed to adhere to the minimal

pleading requirements set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), see id. at 1–2. The Court

provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint, correcting all the noted

deficiencies, within 30 days. See id. at 2.

Since that time, the Court has provided Plaintiff with two extensions to that deadline, and

on July 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 7. Then

on August 14, 2025, she filed a Supplement (“Supp.”), ECF No. 8, to the Amended Complaint,

though she did not seek leave to do so, nor was leave granted, and the submission thus fails to

comply with Federal Rule 15(a) and D.C. Local Civil Rules 7(i) and 15(i). In any event, the

Supplement largely repeats allegations already set forth in the Amended Complaint.

Upon review, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff, who

sues her employer, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), has clarified in her Amended

Complaint and Supplement that she seeks to enforce an order entered by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) because the SBA has refused to comply with the order’s mandatory

terms. See Am. Compl. at 2–3, 6–79 (Exhibits); Supp. at 1–2. She seeks to enforce that order and

requests an entry of default judgment and damages. See Am. Compl. at 3; Supp. at 2.

Relevant here, once a MSPB decision becomes final, a party may petition the MSPB for

enforcement of the decision. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182; Gammal v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 671 F.2d

654, 656 (1st Cir. 1982). Upon a properly filed petition for enforcement, an administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) must issue a decision on the question of compliance. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a).

If the ALJ finds that the agency has not complied with the final decision, the ALJ must issue an

initial decision directing the agency to comply, see id. § 1201.183(a)(8)(i), and a party objecting

to that initial decision or compliance with it may petition the MSPB for further review, see id.

§ 1201.183(b)–(c). “Pursuant to th[ese] regulation[s], the Merit Board itself, not this Court, is the

appropriate forum. This Court has no authority to enforce such orders.” Lodge v. U.S. Dep’t of

Treasury, No. 07-cv-02773, 2008 WL 11417242, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2008) (citing 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.182) (dismissing as frivolous and for want of subject matter jurisdiction).

In fact, Plaintiff seems to be aware of these requirements because, on July 9, 2025, she

appears to have filed a petition for enforcement, by and through counsel, with the MSPB. See Am.

Compl. at 6–10. Because the MSPB has set procedures for adjudicating a petition to enforce its

own orders, Plaintiff cannot make “a collateral attack raised in the district court.” See Wilder v.

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., No. 09-cv-00615, 2009 WL 935813, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2009) (quoting

Arakawa v. Reagan, 666 F. Supp. 254, 257 (D.D.C. 1987)). To that same end, the Court cannot

intervene or otherwise interfere with Plaintiff’s pending petition for enforcement or any tangential

claims and issues. The Court “is precluded from either reviewing final decisions of MSPB or

compelling MSPB to act in a certain manner because the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a final order or final decision of the MSPB,” Grant v.

Dep’t of Treasury, 194 F. Supp. 3d 25, 30 (D.D.C. 2016) (alteration adopted) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted), and insofar as Plaintiff challenges a final order or decision of the MSPB,

the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction, see Ord. at 2 (already noting same)

(citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)); Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 6 (2012) (citing

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9)).

Consequently, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Date: November 5, 2025 _______________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge