Rudolph Martinez, Jr. v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RUDOLPH MARTINEZ, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1387
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DE-0752-21-0052-C-3.
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Rudolph Martinez, Jr. seeks our review of a decision of
an administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protection
Board dismissing his enforcement petition without preju-
dice to automatic refiling on or about March 12, 2026.1 We
1 The administrative judge explained that “[d]ismis-
sal without prejudice is an appropriate mechanism to en-
sure efficient use of the resources of the Board under the
Case: 25-1387 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

MARTINEZ v. MSPB 2
directed the parties to show cause as to our jurisdiction to
review this matter. In its response, the Board urges dis-
missal. Mr. Martinez has not responded.
This court’s jurisdiction is limited to “an appeal from a
final order or final decision of the . . . Board,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9) (emphases added). Board decisions indicating
that further proceedings on the merits are required are
non-final decisions. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot.
Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that dis-
missal with “the option of refiling [the Board appeal]” is not
a “final, appealable order[]” (collecting cases)); cf. Weed v.
Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of ju-
risdiction.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
September 25, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
circumstances” because Mr. Martinez’s Board petition for
enforcement is “intertwined with [his] active court litiga-
tion and that the court’s future decision(s) on it stand to
directly affect Appellant’s claim” before the Board. ECF
No. 2 at 88–89.
Case: 25-1387 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 2 of 2 --