Case: 25-1906 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADAM STEIGERT, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2025-1906 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH-3443-25-1394-I-1. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before DYK, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER Adam Steigert petitions this court to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his ap- peal subject to automatic refiling in January 2026. In re- sponse to this court’s order to show cause, the Board urges Case: 25-1906 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2025

2 STEIGERT v. MSPB

dismissal.1 Mr. Steigert argues that this court should re- tain jurisdiction and submits several motions that appear to argue the merits of the case, including a motion for leave to submit a reply to the show cause order.

This court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to “final” orders or decisions of the Board, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), i.e., a decision or order that “ends the litigation on the merits,” Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board’s order dismissing the appeal subject to automatic refiling amounts to a stay of proceedings pend- ing events that might affect the outcome of Mr. Steigert’s appeal. Such orders do not end the litigation on the merits and are not typically final appealable decisions. See Gulf- stream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275 (1988). To the extent Mr. Steigert seeks mandamus relief based on the purported delay in resolving his appeal, we cannot say at this time that he has shown the type of egregious unreasonable delay that might warrant manda- mus relief. See generally Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed. (2) The motion for leave to file a reply to the show cause order, ECF No. 31, is granted.

1 Although Mr. Steigert’s Statement Concerning Discrimination Form indicated he raised discrimination claims before the Board, it appears he did so in connection with an Individual Right of Action appeal, and as such, he has not brought a so-called “mixed case” that would ordi- narily belong in federal district court. See Young v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 961 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Case: 25-1906 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2025

STEIGERT v. MSPB 3

(3) All other pending motions are denied as moot. (4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

October 20, 2025 Date