Whether the principles of collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion applies when Merit-Systems-Protection-Board-has-resolved-an-issue

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under doctrine of issue preclusion (also known as collateral : estoppel) And Article III of the Constitution moot issues. (1) Whether the principles of collateral estoppel/ Issue preclusion applies when Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) a quasi-judicial feda eral administrative agency that was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) has resolved an issue like wage increase and performance issues (2) Whether the court is permitted under Article III of the constitution moot issues to adjudicate and affirm Interior relitigating of moot FY 2013 performance and Wage Increase issues reversed by Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on 2/28/14 and granted by Department of Interior on 3/10/14 with no relief to be granted by district court. (3) Whether the court is permitted under Article III of the constitution moot issues to adjudicate and affirm Interior relitigating of moot FY 2014 performance and Wage Increase issues reversed by Merit Systems Protection : Board (MSPB) on 12/29/14 and granted by Department of Interior on 1/20/15 (4) Whether under doctrine of issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel) prohibits and bars Department of Interior relitigating ; of their 10/17/13 Employee Performance t ii : QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued Appraisal Plan (EPAP) already litigated as the basis of 5/1/14 Summary Rating of “Minimally Successful” and reversed by MSPB on , 12/29/14 (5) Whether under Article III of the constitution if A federal court is permitted to adjudicate moot issues when it cannot give the petitioner any effective relief. (6) Whether it’s a contravention of issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel) And Article III of the Constitution for the District court to adjudicate on merit Interior relitigat: ing of a moot 2014 WIGI Denial and DC circuit affirmed: Therefore, because the plaintiff has failed to overcome the Department’s well-documented basis for denying his WIGI, the Court concludes that the Department is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that he was denied a 2014 WIGI. App. 137 issues, See 12/3/15 MSPB Petition for Enforcement for FY2014 Wage Increase Remand order: Compliance Initial Decision (CID). She found that the agency fully complied with the Board’s order because it: (1) retroactively effected the appellant’s WIGI to GS-12, step 3; (2) paid him the appropriate amount of back pay with interest and adjusted his benefits; and (3) informed him in writing of all actions 1 iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued taken to comply with the Board’s order : @ App. 65. . (7) Whether the district court have jurisdiction under Article III of the constitution and 5 US.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A)(2) C To adjudicate Department of Interior relitigating of their moot FY 2013 and FY 2014, performance and wage increase defeat of 12/29/14 at MSPB and granting Interior summary judgment for a nonexistent “FY 2014 wage increase denial : step#3”: When Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) specifically Informed Depart: ment of Interior that its Order of 12/29/14 reversing FY 2014 Performance determination and Wage increase step #3 is final: “Dear Mr. Hildreth: This is in response to your request for reconsideration of the Board order dated 12/29/14. The order directed the agency to retroactively grant the appellant relief. The Board’s regulations do not provide for your request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. Therefore, no further right to review this appeal by the Board. App. 119. See 5 C.E.R. . § 1201.113(c). (8) Whether the US Department of Interior relitigating of FY 2013 Wage increase denial reversed by MSPB on 2/28/14 and granted by Interior on 3/10/14 and for FY 2014 Wage iv QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued increase denial reversed by MSPB on 12/29/14 and granted by Interior on 1/20/15 constitutes contempt of 2/28/14 and 12/29/14 MSPB Or: ders and constitutes harassments, reprisal, discrimination, and h