Martinez v. MSPB

Opinion

Case: 25-1387 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

RUDOLPH MARTINEZ, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2025-1387

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DE-0752-21-0052-C-3.

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Rudolph Martinez, Jr. seeks our review of a decision of an administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his enforcement petition without prejudice to automatic refiling on or about March 12, 2026.1 We

1 The administrative judge explained that “[d]ismissal without prejudice is an appropriate mechanism to ensure efficient use of the resources of the Board under the

Case: 25-1387 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2025

2 MARTINEZ v. MSPB

directed the parties to show cause as to our jurisdiction to review this matter. In its response, the Board urges dismissal . Mr. Martinez has not responded.

This court’s jurisdiction is limited to “an appeal from a final order or final decision of the . . . Board,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (emphases added). Board decisions indicating that further proceedings on the merits are required are non-final decisions. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that dismissal with “the option of refiling [the Board appeal]” is not a “final, appealable order[]” (collecting cases)); cf. Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction .

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

September 25, 2025 Date

circumstances” because Mr. Martinez’s Board petition for enforcement is “intertwined with [his] active court litigation and that the court’s future decision(s) on it stand to directly affect Appellant’s claim” before the Board. ECF No. 2 at 88–89.