Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner sought reconsideration of his late petition for review and requested a court-appointed attorney following a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board's decision, dated September 26, 2003, stipulated that any petition for review must be filed within 60 days of receipt, as governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The petitioner claimed receipt of the decision on October 24, 2003, due to his absence and lack of communication from his representative. However, the court received his petition on December 30, 2003, exceeding the statutory 60-day filing period. Relying on established precedent that service to a representative is equivalent to service to the litigant, the court found the petition untimely. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The petitioner's request for legal representation was rendered moot in light of the dismissal. The decision underscores the strict application of statutory deadlines for filing petitions, emphasizing the finality of Board decisions when procedural requirements are not met.
Legal Issues Addressed
Filing Deadlines under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the statutory requirement that petitions for review must be filed within 60 days of receipt of notice of the Board's decision, dismissing the petition as untimely filed beyond this period.
Reasoning: The review of Board decisions is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which mandates that petitions be filed within 60 days of the petitioner receiving notice of the Board's decision.
Mootness of Requests for Legal Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ambrose's request for a court-appointed legal representative was deemed moot due to the dismissal of his petition for untimeliness.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court dismissed Ambrose’s petition for review as untimely, ordered that each party bear its own costs, and deemed his request for legal representation moot.
Service to Representative Equivalencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that service to Ambrose's representative constituted proper notice to Ambrose himself, impacting the commencement of the filing period.
Reasoning: The court noted that service to a representative is equivalent to service to the litigant.