Sylvester Casimier, Jr. v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SYLVESTER CASIMIER, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2251
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0831-19-0460-I-1.
______________________
Decided: May 9, 2025
______________________
SYLVESTER CASIMIER, J R., Midland, GA, pro se.
G ALINA I. F OMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2251 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

CASIMIER v. OPM 2
Sylvester Casimier, Jr., petitions for review of a Merit
Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) order dismissing his
appeal as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Casimier
v. OPM, No. AT-0831-19-0460-I-1, 2024 WL 3069170
(M.S.P.B. June 18, 2024) (“2024 Final Order”). For the rea-
sons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Casimier was an employee of the U.S. Postal Ser-
vice until his removal in March 1997 for absence without
official leave. In 1998, Mr. Casimier appealed his removal
to the MSPB, arguing that he was “medically unable to
work more than four hours per day.” Casimier v. USPS,
194 F.3d 1330, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Table). The MSPB
upheld his removal because it found conflicting medical
opinions in the record on this point and ultimately found
the opinions of the doctors that said Mr. Casimier could
work full days more persuasive. Id. We affirmed the
MSPB’s decision. Id. at *2.
In 2003, Mr. Casimier applied for and received a refund
of his Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”) retire-
ment contributions. Thereafter, in December 2003, Mr.
Casimier filed an application for disability retirement un-
der CSRS. That application was denied by OPM because,
among other reasons, Mr. Casimier had applied for and re-
ceived a refund of his retirement contributions. Therefore,
Mr. Casimier was not entitled to further benefits under
CSRS. The MSPB denied Mr. Casimier’s petition for re-
view, and we affirmed the MSPB’s denial. See Casimier v.
OPM, 205 F. App’x 839, 840 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In 2018, Mr. Casimier filed another application for re-
tirement benefits with OPM. In April 2019, OPM again
denied the application because Mr. Casimier had applied
for and received his retirement contributions in 2003. Mr.
Casimier again filed a petition for review by the MSPB.
“During the course of the appeal, OPM stated that it re-
scinded its April 2019 decision and moved to dismiss the
Case: 24-2251 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

CASIMIER v. OPM 3
appeal for lack of jurisdiction or as barred by res judicata
and/or collateral estoppel.” 2024 Final Order, 2024 WL
3069170, at *1. In its initial decision, the MSPB adminis-
trative judge agreed and dismissed the appeal as barred by
res judicata. Id. Mr. Casimier petitioned the MSPB for
review of this initial decision. In a final order, the MSPB
affirmed the dismissal of the appeal based on res judicata.
Id. at *3.
Mr. Casimier timely petitioned this court for review,
and we have jurisdiction to review the MSPB’s 2024 Final
Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We must affirm the MSPB’s decision unless it is “(1) ar-
bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c).
Mr. Casimier argues that the MSPB’s decision was not
in accordance with law and unsupported by substantial ev-
idence under two possible theories: (1) that he was injured
on the job which means he was wrongfully terminated, see
Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2–3, and (2) that he was wrongfully de-
nied entitlement to CSRS benefits based on injuries suf-
fered on the job prior to his removal, 2024 Final Order,
2024 WL 3069170, at *3.
As to Mr. Casimier’s first theory, that question relates
to an appeal that is not properly before us. Mr. Casimier’s
argument is effectively a request to re-review the U.S.
Postal Service removal decision from 1997. We already re-
viewed and affirmed that decision more than two decades
ago in 1999. See Casimier, 194 F.3d 1330 (Table). Mr. Cas-
imier has not demonstrated how we would have authority
to re-review that decision in this case. To the extent Mr.
Casimier argues that his allegedly wrongful termination
Case: 24-2251 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

CASIMIER v. OPM 4
somehow relates to his current appeal, that argument is
barred by res judicata for the same reasons as his second
theory as described below.
“Claim preclusion prevents parties from litigating is-
sues that could have been raised in a prior action.” Carson
v. Dep’t of Energy, 398 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(emphasis added).1 “[R]es judicata applies if (1) the prior
decision was rendered by a forum with competent jurisdic-
tion; (2) the prior decision was a final decision on the mer-
its; and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties
or their privies were involved in both cases.” Id.
Mr. Casimier does not dispute that the MSPB and Fed-
eral Circuit had jurisdiction over his prior petitions for re-
view, that the resulting prior decisions are final, and that
the same parties were involved in both cases. See Cas-
imier, 205 F. App’x 839; 2024 Final Order, 2024 WL
3069170, at *3; Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2–3. As to the same
cause of action, both OPM and the MSPB identified the
cause of action as an entitlement to CSRS annuity benefits.
See Resp’t’s Informal Br. 7; 2024 Final Order, 2024 WL
3069170, at *3. We agree the cause of action in this case
relates to Mr. Casimier’s eligibility for CSRS benefits given
that OPM, the MSPB administrative judge, and the full
MSPB understood his claim as such. See S.App’x.2 12; 2024
Final Order, 2024 WL 3069170, at *3. And Mr. Casimier
does not appear to dispute this point either. See Pet’r’s In-
formal Br. 3 (arguing that res judicata should not apply
“even if it involves the same c[au]se [of action]”).
1 Res judicata is also known as “claim preclusion” in
circumstances like those raised here. See Carson, 398 F.3d
at 1375.
2 “S.App’x.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with Respondent’s brief.
Case: 24-2251 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

CASIMIER v. OPM 5
Instead, Mr. Casimier asks us to reject the application
of res judicata because a July 2000 decision provides “new
evidence” supporting his appeal. Specifically, Mr. Cas-
imier argues “res judicat[a] does not bar a suit even if it
involves the same c[au]se as alleged earlier as long as the
suit alleges new fact.” Pet’r’s Informal Br. 3 (citing Lawlor
v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955)). This is
incorrect. Rather, as explained in Lawlor, the Court found
that new violations after a first judgment were not barred
by res judicata in a second judgment because they consti-
tuted new causes of action. See Lawlor, 349 U.S. at 327–28.
That is not the case here. Whether complaining about a
wrongful termination action or denial of CSRS benefits, the
July 2000 decision does not constitute a new violation by
the U.S. Postal Service or OPM. Rather, at best, Mr. Cas-
imier presents a new theory or argument not raised in his
previous appeals to recover under the same cause of action
previously adjudicated. But those are the types of issues
that are barred by res judicata.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Casimier’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above,
we affirm the MSPB’s dismissal of Mr. Casimier’s petition
for review based on res judicata.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2251 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 5 of 5 --