Charles MASON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; Defense Commissary Agency, Respondents.
Decided: September 16, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Charles Mason, Pro Se David Pehlke, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division - Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondents
Charles Mason petitions pro se for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's (“MSPB”) dismissal of his appeal in his individual right action alleging violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). We will set aside the MSPB's actions, findings, or conclusions only if they are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We deny the petition.
The MSPB properly dismissed Mason's appeal as barred by res judicata. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Newly articulated claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject to a res judicata finding if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action.”); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of res judicata); Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“By obtaining [a voluntary dismissal with prejudice], the plaintiff submits to a judgment that serves to bar his claims forever[.]”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
The MSPB's untimely motion for leave to intervene (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as unnecessary.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.