Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RONALD KEITH WATKINS SR., Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent ______________________

2024-1904 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0841-24-0501-I-1. ______________________

Decided: December 6, 2024 ______________________

RONALD KEITH WATKINS, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.

ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges. Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2024

2 WATKINS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. Ronald Keith Watkins, Sr. has appealed the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final decision dismissing his appeal as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Wat- kins v. OPM, No. DC-0841-24-0501-I-1, 2024 WL 3077398 (M.S.P.B. May 31, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Watkins held a series of employment positions with the government of the District of Columbia (“D.C.”) beginning in 1981. Mr. Watkins’s final position was with the D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) from Septem- ber 1986 until his termination in February 2003. After his termination, Mr. Watkins brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“Superior Court”) against DOC alleging that DOC terminated him in retalia- tion for whistleblowing. Decision, 2024 WL 3077398. On March 27, 2008, the D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately af- firmed the judgment of the Superior Court granting Mr. Watkins relief, including front pay and back pay in lieu of reinstatement. See Watkins v. District of Columbia, 944 A.2d 1077, 1085 (D.C. 2008). Between 2013 and 2014, Mr. Watkins submitted retire- ment applications with the DOC and the D.C. Department of Human Resources. The applications were denied, and Mr. Watkins filed suit in the Superior Court challenging those denials. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Su- perior Court’s dismissal of his complaint on the grounds that Mr. Watkins’s retirement was governed by the federal Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Mr. Watkins then applied for retirement under the CSRS. On February 8, 2016, the Office of Personnel Man- agement (“OPM”) issued a final decision denying his appli- cation on the grounds that Mr. Watkins did not have the requisite creditable service to be eligible for an immediate retirement annuity. Mr. Watkins filed an MSPB appeal Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2024

WATKINS v. OPM 3

challenging OPM’s final decision, and the MSPB Adminis- trative Judge (“AJ”) affirmed OPM’s decision. Mr. Watkins filed a Petition for Review, and the MSPB issued a final order affirming the AJ’s initial decision. Mr. Watkins ap- pealed the MSPB’s decision to this court, and we affirmed the MSPB’s decision on September 14, 2023. See Watkins v. OPM, No. 2022-2085, 2023 WL 5970785 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2023). On April 17, 2024, OPM sent Mr. Watkins a letter no- tifying him that he had fully adjudicated his application before the MSPB as of September 14, 2023, and had ex- hausted his administrative rights on the matter. Mr. Wat- kins then filed another appeal to the MSPB regarding this letter. On May 6, 2024, the AJ issued an Acknowledgment Order and an “Order to Show Cause—Jurisdiction” inform- ing Mr. Watkins that his appeal appeared barred by res ju- dicata and collateral estoppel given his prior appeals. Mr. Watkins filed five responses to the order, and the AJ determined that Mr. Watkins’s appeal was barred by res judicata and dismissed the appeal. The decision became final on July 5, 2024. Decision, 2024 WL 3077398. Mr. Watkins timely appealed, and this court has juris- diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION In review of MSPB final decisions, we must affirm the decision unless “agency action, findings, or conclusions [are] found to be—(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis- cretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob- tained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by sub- stantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing error in the [MSPB]’s de- cision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Whether, based on the facts of the case, a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of law which we review Case: 24-1904 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2024

4 WATKINS v. OPM

de novo.” Faust v. United States, 101 F.3d 675, 677 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). “Under the doctrine of res judicata . . . , [a] final judg- ment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). Accordingly, res judicata applies when it is proven that “(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the first suit proceeded to a final judgment on the mer- its; and (3) the second claim is based on the same set of transactional facts as the first.” Id. We agree with the MSPB that Mr. Watkins’s present appeal is barred by res judicata. First, the parties are iden- tical, as Mr. Watkins has previously brought suit against OPM. Second, our September 14, 2023 decision affirming the MSPB was a final judgment on the merits of Mr. Wat- kins’s appeal. Third, this second appeal is based on the same set of transactional facts as the first—here, Mr. Wat- kins is alleging (again) entitlement to back pay and a re- tirement annuity under the CSRS based on his federal employment from 1981 to 2003. Despite Mr. Watkins’s re- quest that the MSPB review his appeal to consider new ev- idence and correct alleged legal errors, res judicata bars relitigation of his claim. We therefore affirm the MSPB’s decision dismissing Mr. Watkins’s appeal as barred by res judicata. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Watkins’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.