Gregory Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, 2016 MSPB 35

Turner filed multiple MSPB appeals alleging the Postal Service improperly handled his restoration to duty and related enforcement matters; the Board consolidated/joined related dockets to expedite processing.
Administrative judge scheduled status conferences (Feb 11, 2016) and repeatedly ordered Turner to provide a release authorizing the agency to obtain his Department of Labor workers’ compensation records.
Turner failed to appear at the status conferences and did not comply with repeated orders (Feb 17, Mar 11, Apr 8, 2016) to execute the release or update contact information; orders warned dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Turner registered as an e-filer on April 26, 2016 but otherwise took no steps to pursue the appeals between his nonappearance and his petitions for review; he later claimed financial inability to access phone/computer.
The administrative judge dismissed both appeals with prejudice for failure to prosecute (May 24, 2016); Turner petitioned for review arguing dismissal was unwarranted due to his financial difficulties.
The Board denied review, joined the appeals, and affirmed the dismissals, finding Turner failed to exercise basic due diligence and that less severe measures were not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted	Turner: financial hardship prevented access to phone/computer, so noncompliance excusable	Agency: appellant failed to comply with orders and did not prosecute; records were necessary	Held: Dismissal affirmed — repeated failures showed lack of due diligence; financial hardship not a sufficient excuse
Whether pro se status/partial filings preclude dismissal	Turner: pro se and confused by procedures; registered as e-filer	Agency: noncompliance persisted despite warnings; e-filer registration insufficient	Held: Pro se status and limited filings do not bar dismissal where party fails to act and ignores orders
Whether single-order noncompliance rule applies	Turner: argued noncompliance isolated/limited	Agency: multiple orders ignored across appeals	Held: Multiple unresponded orders justify dismissal; not a single-order failure
Whether Board abused discretion in sanctions	Turner: sanction too severe given circumstances	Agency: sanction appropriate given repeated noncompliance and centrality of records	Held: No abuse of discretion — dismissal was necessary to serve ends of justice

Leseman v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 139 (Board 2015) (dismissal may be imposed for failure to prosecute)
Chandler v. Department of the Navy, 87 M.S.P.R. 369 (Board 2000) (severe sanction only when necessary; consider pro se confusion)
Ahlberg v. Department of Health & Human Services, 804 F.2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (dismissal appropriate where party fails to exercise basic due diligence)
Murdock v. Government Printing Office, 38 M.S.P.R. 297 (Board 1988) (complete failure to respond to Board orders justifies dismissal)
Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 64 M.S.P.R. 257 (Board 1994) (financial difficulty generally does not excuse filing noncompliance)
Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211 (Board 1980) (standard on presenting new evidence on review)