Judd v. U.S. Postal Service

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appea|s for the Federa| Circuit 2010-3080 LOUlS J. JUDD, JR_, Petiti0ner, V. UNlTED STATES POSTAL SERV|CE, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in PH3330090523-|-1. ON MOTlON Before MAYER, LOURlE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURlAM. 0 R D E R _ The court treats Louis J. Judd, Jr.'s |etter, received on February 18, 2010, as a motion for reconsideration of the courts rejection of his petition for review as untimely. Judd also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The United States Posta| Senrice moves to dismiss this petition for review. The Administrative Judge (AJ) issued his initial decision dismissing Judd’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on 0ctober 15, 2009. That decision informed Judd that the initial decision would become final for purposes of appealing to this court on November 19, 2009 unless he filed a petition for review with the Board. Judd did not file a petition with the Board. Judd’s petition seeking review by this court was received by this court on January 26, 2010, 67 days after the date the AJ’s decision became fina|. Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1), which provides that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board." This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictiona|.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Trans;L, 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. ‘l984); § also tBowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived). The petition must be received by this court on or before the due date. Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court dismissed petition received nine days late); Fed. R. App. P_ 25(a)(2)(A) ("fi|ing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing"). Judd’s petition was due no later than January 19, 2010. Because the petition was not timely received by the court, we must deny Judd's motion and dismiss this petition. Accordingly, T |S ORDERED THAT: l[1) The motion for reconsideration is denied. l[_2) The motion to dismiss is granted. i[3) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted i[4) Each side shall bear its own costs. 2010-3080 2 FOR THE COURT APR 1 5 2010 g /slJan Horbaly , Date j Jan Horbaly C|erk cc: Louis J. Judd, Jr. David M. Hibey, Esq. s19 issuEo As /-\ iviANoA'rE; APR 1 6 2010 2010-3080 [3] APR 1 6 2010 .IAN HORBALY CLER'K