October 28, 2015

WILLIE RAY WIGGINS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PSBCA Nos. 6513, 6539

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Willie Ray Wiggins 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
United States Postal Service Law Department   

DISMISSAL

This case was docketed in July 2013, and Appellant filed a complaint in November 2013.  Following a series of delays attributed to Appellant, the Board scheduled a hearing for March 10, 2015.  See May 16, 2014 Order. 

During a November 13, 2014 telephone conference, Appellant expressed difficulty replying to Respondent’s discovery requests.  The Board suspended the schedule in response and established a procedure under which the Board’s judicial law clerk would attempt to assist the parties to complete discovery.  See November 13, 2014 Order.

However, despite the assistance of the Board’s judicial law clerk, the parties were unable to resolve Appellant’s failure to respond to discovery.  During those discussions, the parties expressed uncertainty regarding the scope of this consolidated case.  As a result, the Board required each party to file a written statement explaining their positions.  See March 16, 2015 Order.

Appellant did not comply with the Order.  The Board issued another Order addressing the scope of the case and its discovery dispute.  The Order treated the Postal Service’s oral contentions as a motion to compel and required Appellant to respond in full to the Postal Service’s discovery requests by May 15, 2015 or explain why he is unable or should not be required to do so.  The Board also ordered the parties to file a status report no later than May 29, 2015.  See April 16, 2015 Order.

Respondent filed the required status report explaining that it had “not received any discovery responses or explanation regarding their absence from [Appellant],” and that it was unable to reach Appellant by telephone to discuss the matter.  Appellant did not file anything in response to the Board’s Order.

The Board then noted that the history of this case suggested that Appellant is unable or unwilling to prosecute it.  The Board suspended the case for 90 days to provide Appellant a further opportunity to prosecute.  The Board ordered that by the end of that 90-day period, Appellant either must file an explanatory status report or contact the Board to request a telephone conference.  The Board cautioned Appellant, however, that if he failed to comply by September 3, 2015, the Board intended to lift the suspension, and may begin the process of dismissing the case for lack of prosecution.  See June 3, 2015 Order.  The June 3, 2015 Order was delivered to Appellant on June 6, 2015, but he did not respond.

On September 16, 2015, the Board ordered Appellant to file a status report by October 15, 2015 responding to all outstanding Orders or showing cause why he is unable to do so.  The Board warned Appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissal of these appeals.  See September 16, 2015 Order.

The September 16, 2015 Order was delivered to Appellant on September 18, 2015, but he did not respond.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that Appellant has abandoned these appeals, and has failed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed.  Pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 955.32, these appeals are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman 

I concur:

William A. Campbell
Administrative Judge
Chairman 

I concur:

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge
Board Member