Petitions / Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update four new pro se petitions were filed and the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petitions

Four new petitions were filed with the Court this week in pro se cases.

In Gossage v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the petitioner asked the Court to review five questions:

  1. “Whether the 60-day filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling beyond the control of the Petitioner or under ‘Unique or Personal Circumstances’ is warranted for ‘Want of Service’ or OPM’s misconduct in OPM Investigation Case 01-904-277?”
  2. “Whether Congress intended the ’60 day filing period’ as [j]urisdictional and ‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law’ (5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A)) is a claim processing rule subject to the equitable doctrine of tolling?”
  3. “Whether 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3 [s]ubject matter jurisdiction overrules the ’60 day fifing period deadline’ on the [m]erits, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A)?”
  4. “Whether OPM’s December 27, 2004, Final Decision in OPM Investigation Case 01-904-277 removed [f]ederal [j]urisdiction in SE-0731-01-0261-M-1, F. Circuit 2005-3155, and SE-0731-01-0261-I-2?”
  5. “Whether Due Process is violated, when Petitioner is denied the right to appeal or challenge the [c]ourt[‘]s jurisdiction on unavailable exculpatory and undisclosed new and material evidence, removing the [l]ower [c]ourt’s [j]urisdiction?”

In another case bearing the name Gossage v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the petitioner asked the Court to consider the following questions:

  1. “Whether Petitioner has standing to correct a jurisdictional error before the [l]ower [c]ourts for ‘want of jurisdiction’ or ‘jurisdiction on the merits,’ based on OPM’s December 27, 2004, final decision?”
  2. “Whether the Federal Circuit has [j]urisdiction from the Clerk of the Merit Systems Protection Board decision, ‘Mr. Gossage had no further right to review in those matters,’ based on OPM’s final decision?”
  3. “Whether the Federal Circuit has [j]urisdiction or ‘lacks jurisdiction’ to determine its original and lower court’s jurisdiction in OPM Investigation Case 01-904-277 and its December 27, 2004 final decision, vacating/overturning OPM’s May 16, 2001, initial decision?”
  4. “Whether Due Process is violated, when Petitioner is denied the right to appeal, based on new and material evidence, removing the [l]ower [c]ourt’s 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3 jurisdiction?”

In Gossage v. Office of Personnel Management, the petitioner presented four questions to the Court:

  1. “Whether the Federal Circuit has [j]urisdiction or ‘lacks jurisdiction’ to determine its original and lower court’s jurisdiction in OPM Investigation Case 01-904-277 and OPM’s December 27, 2004 final decision, vacating/overturning OPM’s May 16, 2001, initial decision?”
  2. “Whether the Order and [j]udgments entered after OPM’s December 27, 2004, is [v]oid for lack of [j]urisdiction or a legal nullity?”
  3. “Whether the MSPB Judgment entered on September 27, 2004, is [m]oot?”
  4. “Whether the Court entered a default judgment by substituting its own decision for that of the Agency’s (OPM) December 27, 2004 decision?”

In another case bearing the name Gossage v. Office of Personnel Management, the petitioner present the following questions to the Court:

  1. “Whether the Federal Circuit has [j]urisdiction or ‘lacks jurisdiction’ to determine its original and lower court’s jurisdiction in OPM Investigation Case 01-904-277 and its December 27, 2004 final decision, vacating/overturning OPM’s May 16, 2001, initial decision?”
  2. “Whether the Court entered a default judgment by substituting its 5 C.F.R. § 731 et seq. decision for that of the Agency’s (OPM) December 27, 2004 decision?”
  3. “Whether Due Process is violated, when Petitioner is denied the right to appeal 5 C.F.R. § 300.104, an employment practice?”
  4. “Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) is a claim-processing rule superior over Petitioner’s 5th Amendment Constitutional claims?”

Waiver of Right to Respond

In Meidinger v. United States, another pro se case, the government submitted a waiver of right to respond.