Manuel Mora, Jr. v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MANUEL MORA, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1639
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0831-18-0241-I-1.
______________________
Decided: February 10, 2025
______________________
MANUEL M ORA, J R., Zambales, Philippines, pro se.
ELIZABETH M ARIE D URFEE P ULLIN, Commercial Litiga-
tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented
by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ALBERT S. I AROSSI, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1639 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

MORA v. OPM 2
P ER CURIAM .
Manuel Mora, Jr. appeals from a decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) holding his admin-
istrative appeal precluded under the doctrine of res judi-
cata. Mora v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-18-0241-I-1,
2024 WL 659619 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 15, 2024). For the follow-
ing reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mora Jr.’s father worked for the United States Depart-
ment of the Navy (“the Navy”) intermittently from May
1946 until August 1980. S.A.1 2. At some point, the elder
Mora filed an application with OPM seeking a deferred re-
tirement annuity pursuant to the Civil Service Retirement
Act (“CSRA”). S.A. 2; see 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. After the
application was denied, the elder Mora appealed OPM’s de-
cision to the Board. In an Initial Decision dated January
15, 2015, an administrative judge (“AJ”) denied the appeal,
determining that the elder Mora was not entitled to a de-
ferred retirement annuity because his positions with the
Navy were not covered by the CSRA. Mora v. Off. of Pers.
Mgmt., No. SF-0831-14-0822-I-1, 2015 WL 241676 (Jan.
15, 2015). The Initial Decision was not appealed and be-
came final on February 19, 2015. S.A. 2.
After the elder Mora passed away, Mora Jr. filed with
OPM an Application for Death Benefits, asserting that he
was entitled to a deferred retirement annuity based on his
father’s employment with the Navy. S.A. 3. OPM denied
the application, explaining that the elder Mora’s ineligibil-
ity for benefits under the CSRA necessarily rendered Mora
Jr. ineligible. S.A. 3.
1 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with Respondent’s Brief.
Case: 24-1639 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

MORA v. OPM 3
Mora Jr. appealed the denial of his Application for
Death Benefits to the Board. On May 18, 2018, an AJ is-
sued an Initial Decision, holding that res judicata pre-
cluded Mora Jr.’s claim by virtue of the previous denial of
his father’s application. S.A. 4–6. Following a petition for
review, the Board summarily affirmed the AJ’s Initial De-
cision denying Mora Jr.’s application on February 15, 2024.
S.A. 18–19.
Mora Jr. timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We must affirm a final decision of the Board unless it
is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
wise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without pro-
cedures required by law, rule or regulation having been
followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
Mora Jr. raises two challenges on appeal. First, Mora
Jr. argues that the Board incorrectly applied res judicata
to bar adjudication of his claim. Second, Mora Jr. asserts
that his father’s positions with the Navy were eligible for
benefits under the CSRA, thereby entitling Mora Jr. to a
deferred retirement annuity. Because we determine that
the Board correctly applied the doctrine of res judicata, we
need not address Mora Jr.’s CSRA argument.
Res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were, or
could have been, raised in a prior action, Allen v. McCurry,
449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980), and applies when: “(1) the prior de-
cision was rendered by a forum with competent jurisdic-
tion; (2) the prior decision was a final decision on the
merits; and (3) the same cause of action and the same par-
ties or their privies were involved in both cases.” Carson v.
Dep’t of Energy, 398 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As
the Supreme Court has explained, res judicata “relieve[s]
parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits,
Case: 24-1639 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

MORA v. OPM 4
conserve[s] judicial resources, and, by preventing incon-
sistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.”
Allen, 449 U.S. at 94. In light of these principles, res judi-
cata applies even when a party asserts a prior decision was
made in error. City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S.
290, 297 (2013) (“even an erroneous judgment is entitled to
res judicata effect”).
While it is unclear from Mora Jr.’s briefing what issue
he takes with the application of res judicata to his claim,
we agree with the Board that res judicata precludes his
claim for a deferred retirement annuity because the Janu-
ary 15, 2015 decision affirming the denial of the elder
Mora’s application for a deferred retirement annuity satis-
fies each element of res judicata.
First, the Board has jurisdiction over applications for
benefits under the CSRA. 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1) (providing
the Board jurisdiction over certain CSRA cases). Second,
the Board decided the elder Mora’s appeal seeking a de-
ferred retirement annuity on the merits, explaining that
the elder Mora did not qualify for benefits under the CSRA
because he was eligible for other government retirement
systems. Mora, 2015 WL 241676; see 5 U.S.C.
§ 8331(1)(L)(ii) (excluding federal employees from receiv-
ing CSRA benefits who are eligible for other government
retirement systems). That decision became final on Febru-
ary 19, 2015 after no appeal was taken from the decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7701(e)(1) (any decision by an AJ “shall be final
unless . . . a party to the appeal or the Director petitions
the Board for review within 30 days after receipt of the de-
cision.”). Third, the present claim and the Board’s decision
denying the elder Mora’s claim involved the same cause of
action: entitlement to a deferred retirement annuity under
the CSRA based on the elder Mora’s positions with the
Navy. And Mora Jr. is a privy to the elder Mora because
Mora Jr’s claim is entirely dependent on his father’s enti-
tlement to the deferred retirement annuity. Restatement
(First) of Judgments § 83 (privity in the context of res
Case: 24-1639 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 02/10/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

MORA v. OPM 5
judicata includes “those whose interests are represented by
a party to the action”).
In sum, the Board correctly held that res judicata ap-
plies to preclude Mora Jr.’s claim. We therefore do not ad-
dress whether Mora Jr. was entitled to a deferred
retirement annuity under the CSRA.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mora Jr.’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1639 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 02/10/2025

-- 5 of 5 --