Adam Steigert v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

STEIGERT v. MSPB 2
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: 2 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

STEIGERT v. MSPB 3
(3) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
October 20, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1906 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2025

-- 3 of 3 --