Williams v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Federal Circuit

Williams v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

117 F. App'x 109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

DocketNo. 04-3470

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 F. App'x 109 (Williams v. Department of Housing & Urban Development) 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.

Bluebook

Williams v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 117 F. App'x 109 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Jerry W. Williams requests that the court accept his untimely petition for review and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 7, 2004 the Administrative Judge (AJ) issued an initial decision informing Williams that the AJ’s decision would become a final Merit Systems Protection Board decision on July 12, 2004. Williams v. Department of Housing and Urban Devt., No. DA-0752-01-0446-P-1 (M.S.P.B. June 7, 2004). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), a petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of the date that a petitioner receives notice of a final Board decision. Williams does not assert that he received the AJ’s decision after July 12, 2004. Williams’ petition for review was received by the court [110]*110on September 15, 2004, more than 60 days after he received notice of a final Board decision.

Williams requests that the court grant him an extension of time or accept his untimely petition for review pursuant to the principles of equitable tolling set forth in Irwin v. DVA, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). However, the 60-day period for filing a petition for review set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional” and cannot be waived. Monzo v. Department of Transp., Federal Aviation Admin., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also Fed. R.App. P. 26(b) (an appellate court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal or petition for review). Because Williams’ petition for review was received on September 15, 2004, 5 days late, this court must dismiss Williams’ petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Williams’ request that we accept his untimely petition for review is denied.

(2) Williams’ petition for review is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) All pending motions are moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Jerry W. Williams requests that the court accept his untimely petition for review and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 7, 2004 the Administrative Judge (AJ) issued an initial decision informing Williams that the AJ’s decision would become a final Merit Systems Protection Board decision on July 12, 2004. Williams v. Department of Housing and Urban Devt., No. DA-0752-01-0446-P-1 (M.S.P.B. June 7, 2004). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), a petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of the date that a petitioner receives notice of a final Board decision. Williams does not assert that he received the AJ’s decision after July 12, 2004. Williams’ petition for review was received by the court [110]*110on September 15, 2004, more than 60 days after he received notice of a final Board decision.

Williams requests that the court grant him an extension of time or accept his untimely petition for review pursuant to the principles of equitable tolling set forth in Irwin v. DVA, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). However, the 60-day period for filing a petition for review set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional” and cannot be waived. Monzo v. Department of Transp., Federal Aviation Admin., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also Fed. R.App. P. 26(b) (an appellate court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal or petition for review). Because Williams’ petition for review was received on September 15, 2004, 5 days late, this court must dismiss Williams’ petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Williams’ request that we accept his untimely petition for review is denied.

(2) Williams’ petition for review is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) All pending motions are moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. App'x 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-department-of-housing-urban-development-cafc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack