Anthony Seda v. Social Security Administration

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANTHONY SEDA,
Petitioner
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1745
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. PH-0752-17-0451-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Because Anthony Seda indicated that he raised claims
of discrimination before the Merit Systems Protection
Board, this court directed the parties to show cause why
the case should not be transferred or dismissed. In re-
sponse, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) urges
dismissal. Anthony Seda moves to transfer.
Case: 25-1745 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

SEDA v. SSA 2
Since 2006, Mr. Seda has filed several unsuccessful
civil and administrative actions challenging his removal
from SSA during his probationary period. In 2017, Mr.
Seda filed the present matter at the Board. On June 15,
2023, the Board issued its final decision determining that
he was collaterally estopped from disputing he lacked ap-
peal rights and relitigating his termination, retaliation,
and whistleblower arguments based on his prior cases. On
May 2, 2025, Mr. Seda filed this petition for review.
District courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over
“[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5
U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2)—i.e., mixed cases
that involve (1) a non-frivolous allegation of “an action
which the employee. . . may appeal to the” Board and (2)
“that a basis for the action was [covered] discrimination.” 5
U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); see Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582
U.S. 420, 431 (2017). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, we may
transfer this case to a district court where it could have
been brought if it is in the interest of justice.
Here, we need not definitively resolve whether Mr.
Seda brings a “[c]ase[] of discrimination” because regard-
less of the answer to that question we would dismiss. Or-
dinarily, a petitioner must file an action or appeal from the
Board within 30 or 60 days from the date the Board issued
notice of its decision depending on whether review is
sought before this court or a federal district court. See 5
U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)–(2). Here, Mr. Seda filed his petition
more than 600 days after the Board’s final decision.
Even assuming equitable tolling could be applicable,1
Mr. Seda has failed to provide any basis on which this court
1 “While the timing requirement of 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1) is ‘non-jurisdictional,’ it remains an open ques-
tion [in this court] if the timing requirement is subject to
Case: 25-1745 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

SEDA v. SSA 3
could conclude that he has been “pursuing his rights dili-
gently” and that “some extraordinary circumstance stood
in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005).
Under such circumstances, we conclude that this appeal is
untimely, and we therefore dismiss the petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Mr. Seda’s motion to transfer is denied.
(2) This case is dismissed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
September 25, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
equitable tolling.” Graham v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 2025-
1102, 2025 WL 1649092, at *2 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2025)
(quoting Harrow v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 489–90
(2024)).
Case: 25-1745 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 3 of 3 --