Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • DOJlawsuit



Page 1: DOJlawsuit


Number of Pages:33

Date Created:October 15, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 15, 2013

Tags:DOJ, Supreme Court, EPA, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20530,
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20530,
1615 Street,
Washington, D.C. 20419,
Serve: Hon. Eric Holder, Jr.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20530
Serve: Ronald Machen, Jr.
United States Attorney for the
District Columbia
555 Fourth Street,
Washington, D.C. 20530
Serve: Deborah Miron,
Chief Administrative Judge
Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 Street,
Washington, D.C. 20419
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00992-KBJ
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
This mixed case Complaint seeking relief and damages against Defendant
Department Justice DOJ for improper employment removal action violation the
Rehabilitation Act 1973, U.S.C. 791 and appeal subsequent constitutional errors
Defendant Merit Systems Protection Board MSPB upon administrative review violation C.F.R. 1201.56(b) and 1201.115(d)(2).
This Court has appellate jurisdiction over mixed-case complaints involving
agency actions appealable the Merit Systems Protection Board which include unresolved
claims under the Rehabilitation Act 1973, U.S.C 794, pursuant U.S.C. 
7702(a)(1)(B)(iii). See Kloeckner Solis, 133 Ct. 596, 601 (2012).
Venue proper this District under U.S.C. 1391 because the Defendant
agencies reside the District Columbia and substantial portion the events giving rise
this case occurred this District.
Plaintiff John Doe was previously employed Defendant DOJ Assistant
United States Attorney AUSA and citizen and resident state the United States.
Defendant DOJ executive agency the United States Government within
the meaning the Privacy Act. DOJ being sued account the acts other AUSAs and
employees set forth this Complaint.
Defendant Eric Holder the Attorney General the United States and head
the United States Department Justice.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Defendant MSPB independent, quasi-judicial agency the Executive
branch established Congress the Civil Service Reform Act 1978 (CSRA). MSPB
carries out its statutory responsibilities and authorities primarily adjudicating individual
employee appeals and conducting merit systems studies.
John Doe veteran federal prosecutor, having received numerous awards and
recognition for outstanding performance, including the highest award the United States
Attorney General. the time the events alleged this Complaint, John Doe served
Assistant United States Attorney for federal district within the United States.
John Doe began run afoul the leadership the United States Attorney
Office USAO that district 2003. The United States Attorney that time was political
appointee the Bush Administration. The precipitating event occurred May that year,
when John Doe refused authorize illegal search and seizure proposed law enforcement
agent who was supporter and prot the Attorney. The agent proposed this search investigation known the Money Exchange case.
Despite the objection John Doe, the illegal search and seizure was approved
John Doe superiors, including the U.S. Attorney. Therefore, John Doe prepared
memorandum disclose the proposed illegal search and seizure.
John Doe provided the memorandum his superiors and other law
enforcement agents working the investigation. consequence John Doe disclosure,
the illegal search did not occur. This memorandum protected disclosure under the
Whistleblower Protection Act, U.S.C. 1221.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
John Doe was then told the U.S. Attorney collect all copies the
memorandum and destroy them. The U.S. Attorney then told John Doe re-write the
memorandum. John Doe refused. was then removed from the case.
His superiors then increased their pressure John Doe conform their
political goals. the summer 2003, the USAO suggested that John Doe conflicts with their
leadership must the product psychological condition. John Doe met with psychologist
identified the USAO, who found need for any treatment assessment, viewing the matter leadership problem.
13. his superiors persisted, John Doe felt increasing stress 2003. Late that year,
John Doe experienced emotional crisis which reported the USAO. John Doe then took authorized medical leave absence while under the care his psychologist, who diagnosed anxiety disorder. John Doe returned work early 2004.
The USAO then escalated its retaliatory acts against John Doe, including
disciplining him for conduct which occurred during his emotional crisis.
John Doe made additional disclosures regarding his supervisors misconduct from
2005 through 2008 which are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. These
additional protected disclosures included reports misconduct his superiors disciplinary
proceedings, political hirings, and mishandling terrorist investigation.
16. October 24, 2005, John Doe made request the USAO that
accommodations made management account for his job-related anxiety disorder.
June 13, 2006, management provided him with Form 100A, the DOJ Reasonable
Accommodation request. October 2006, John Doe submitted the Form 100A along with
letter from his psychologist.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
17. November 30, 2006, John Doe engaged interactive process with the
Acting United States Attorney and the director the administrative office discuss
appropriate accommodation. December 13, 2006, the director partially granted the reasonable
accommodation request. The USAO agreed increase the level communication between John
Doe and his superiors.
The USAO complied with this promise until the summer 2008. that time,
the USAO knowledge the proposed illegal search and seizure May 2003 the Money
Exchange case became seminal event pending criminal case that district. The law
enforcement agent who proposed the illegal search and seizure was the target new trial
motions filed defendants convicted his cases. These defendants alleged that the USAO
knew acts misconduct the law enforcement agent which should have been disclosed
before trial. The misconduct included instances lying under oath, paying informants set
innocent persons, beating suspects, and tampering with tape recordings. The federal court
ordered the USAO produce all documents related the credibility the law enforcement
officer, including those related the proposed illegal search and seizure.
Also during this time period, John Doe received information from AUSA
another district related fundraising for the 9/11 Terrorists. Based this information, John
Doe sought re-open the Money Exchange case. John Doe believed that the USAO his
district had evidence that persons involved the Money Exchange case raised money for the
9/11 Terrorists. March 26, 2008, the Acting United States Attorney directed John Doe
prepare detailed memorandum regarding his review.
20. the same date, John Doe met with his direct supervisor discuss the 9/11
Terrorist fund raising. During that discussion, the supervisor again criticized John Doe for
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
preparing the memorandum the proposed illegal search 2003 related the Money
Exchange case.
John Doe continued work with investigators the connection between the
Money Exchange case and the 9/11 Terrorists. Their review the evidence suggested that
Mohamed Atta was the United States before 2000, and John Doe district. April 28,
2008, John Doe met again with his direct supervisor discuss the Money Exchange case.
During this meeting, John Doe updated his supervisor the investigation. They also discussed
whether revelation this evidence after many years would expose the USAO criticism.
22. May 2008, John Doe and two case agents continued their work the
Money Exchange case. The three were convinced that they had evidence terrorist fund raising,
including money provided group listed Foreign Terrorist Organization, prior
September 11, 2001. May 2008, John Doe provided his Money Exchange Memorandum
the Acting United States Attorney and his own supervisors. also provided the Memorandum the AUSA another district, the case agents his own district, the DOJ Terrorism Unit
Coordinator, and three other attorneys DOJ familiar with the Money Exchange case.
The Acting United States Attorney concluded that the Memorandum should
sent the DOJ Counter Terrorism Section. May 15, 2008, Deputy Attorney General Mark
Filip issued new DOJ Guideline national security information. Mr. Filip directed DOJ
attorneys promptly make disclosures national security information all law enforcement
components that need the information. May 19, 2008, John Doe provided additional
information the recipients his Money Exchange Memorandum.
24. May 22, 2008, John Doe met with his direct supervisor who questioned the
process the creation the Money Exchange Memorandum. During the meeting, the
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
supervisor criticized John Doe for distributing the Money Exchange Memorandum DOJ
attorneys and law enforcement personnel outside the USAO. The supervisor once again
criticized John Doe for distribution the illegal search memorandum 2003, asserting that
John Doe did not learn his lesson five years ago. John Doe reminded his supervisor that law
enforcement agents and DOJ attorneys are compelled disclose information related national
25. May 23, 2008, John Doe urged the Acting United States Attorney act upon
the Money Exchange Memorandum because bank records underlying the terrorist funding would destroyed after years. May 27, 2008, the United State Attorney ordered John Doe
retrieve the May Money Exchange Memorandum from all recipients. The Acting United States
Attorney then criticized John Doe for going outside the chain command. The Acting United
States Attorney ordered John Doe turn over the Money Exchange case materials another
AUSA. That AUSA never followed the Money Exchange Memorandum.
26. June 2008, his quarterly file review with supervisors, John Doe again was
asked discuss the Money Exchange case and its connection 9/11 fund raising. explained
that coincidence his having worked several investigations his district well
working the Zacarias Moussaoui investigation, the 9/11 fund raising evidence became clear.
John Doe pointed out that even though the 9/11 Commission concluded that the terrorist funding
likely came from domestic donors, one had brought viable 9/11 fund raising prosecution.
27. June 2008, John Doe provided memorandum USAO management
reminding them his anxiety disorder and that the Office had granted him reasonable
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
28. June 17, 2008, John Doe learned that agent with the DOJ Counter
Terrorism Section was appalled that the Money Exchange 9/11 Terrorism evidence was never
29. July 10, 2008, John Doe produced his 2003 memorandum Special
Prosecutors pursuant the federal court order the new trial motions, through the Civil
Division Chief for the USAO.
30. July 16, 2008, USAO management interviewed John Doe for position
the elite Strike Force. During the interview, John Doe was asked whether was convinced that
the Money Exchange case was connected 9/11 Terrorism, which responded,
31. August 2008, fully aware that John Doe was likely witness for the
defense the new trial motions, management advised John Doe that would transferred
the Gun Unit, significant demotion. His superiors again criticized him for preparing the illegal
search memorandum 2003. His superiors also told John Doe that was being transferred for
his health and that they would only enabling him leaving him the elite unit the
USAO where had served admirably. Management also indicated that John Doe would
supervised AUSA about whom John Doe had made Whistleblower complaint.
Management further intended move his office next door another AUSA who was also the
subject the Whistleblower complaint.
32. August 2008, John Doe met with his direct supervisor discuss the
proposed demotion. The supervisor criticized John Doe for disseminating the Money Exchange
Memorandum outside the office, stating that the USAO was embarrassed and had answer
questions from Washington. The supervisor defended the rogue agent who was the subject
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
the new trial motions, and again criticized John Doe for producing the June 2003 memorandum
regarding the illegal search. August 2008, John Doe demotion was announced
office-wide email.
33. the recommendation his DOJ-approved psychologist, August 11, 2008,
John Doe submitted new reasonable accommodation request the USAO, pursuant the
Rehabilitation Act, asking not transferred move his office. There were performance
reasons for such transfer. His psychologist request noted that demoting John Doe would
exacerbate John Doe anxiety disorder. His superiors were ordering him work with persons
who were the subject his prior disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
34. August 15, 2008, USAO management disclosed law enforcement personnel
with whom John Doe worked that was being demoted for his health. 
35. the same date, pursuant the Rehabilitation Act, the USAO requested further
medical documentation support the reasonable accommodation request.
36. September 2008, pursuant the Rehabilitation Act, John Doe submitted
the requested medical documentation the appropriate employee within the administrative
office the USAO, including letters from his psychologist and physician.
Unbeknownst John Doe, without his permission, and violation the United
States Attorneys Procedures USAP 3-5.101.001 (6)( USAP the director the administrative
office the USAO then re-disclosed this medical information the Acting United States
Attorney and AUSAs the office with right need know, who then re-disclosed this
medical information persons the Executive Office for United States Attorneys [EOUSA]
and then persons the Personnel Security Section that office. The EOUSA provides legal
counsel the United States Attorney Offices around the country. Its attorneys had represented
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
the USAO various pending disciplinary matters against John Doe, and its attorneys were
adverse John Doe those matters.
Attorneys for EOUSA have admitted another judicial proceeding that the
protected medical records were shared with them and with the Personnel Security Office DOJ.
Attorneys for EOUSA also have asserted the other judicial proceeding that these disclosures
were for the purpose evaluating John Doe reasonable accommodation request.
Instead engaging the information process established the USAP and
required Sections 501, 504 and 508 the Rehabilitation Act, and making reasonable
accommodations through interactive process accommodate John Doe anxieties and fears working with persons who were the subject his prior disclosures, his superiors used the
medical and psychological information pretext dismissing John Doe. His superiors failed act his request for reasonable accommodation, foreclosing his ability appeal such
decision administratively, violation the USAPs requirement that agency officials respond
promptly such requests, with final disposition made within seven business days receipt
the request medical documentation, cases where medical documentation required.
While purporting use the medical information provided John Doe assess
his reasonable accommodation request, DOJ peremptorily revoked his eligibility for security
clearance. interactive process was utilized express John Doe then represented
counsel the security concerns surrounding his reasonable accommodation request. Nor did DOJ
consult its own medical experts. This because DOJ acting through its employees
EOUSA and the USAO John Doe district believed was then possession Silver
Bullet: reason revoke his security clearance which would make any claim under the
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Rehabilitation Act request unreviewable under the Supreme Court case Dep Navy Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).
The architect this strategy was attorney with the EOUSA who had litigated
employment issues against John Doe for several years. This attorney had developed irrational
animosity towards John Doe, refusing indulge settlement discussions with John Doe attorney
because John Doe was litigious. John Doe contends that after reasonable opportunity for
further discovery, there will evidentiary support for assertion that this attorney has never
before been involved the reasonable accommodation process behalf DOJ any
reasonable accommodation process implicating security clearance issues.
When John Doe arrived work September 11, 2008, less than week after
submitted his medical documentation under the Rehabilitation Act, was met his office
U.S. Marshals and members the USAO. AUSA told John Doe that the EOUSA had
revoked John Doe eligibility for security clearance based the medical information had
submitted under the Rehabilitation Act seeking reasonable accommodation.
John Doe was escorted out and away from the building U.S. Marshals
view the public and member the press. Rumors that John Doe had been fired flew
through the legal community.
Not only did the USAO re-disclose the medical information provided John
Doe under the Rehabilitation Act the EOUSA, but three its AUSAs held telephone
conference with persons the Personnel Security Section September 2008, during which
those AUSAs provided additional medical information related John Doe that protected from
disclosure under the Privacy Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Based this medical information,
the Personnel Security Division the EOUSA concluded that John Doe was longer eligible
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page hold Special-Sensitive, Level position and that was the EOUSA officer lay opinion that
his continued assignment AUSA poses unnecessary and unacceptable operational
security risk the Department. 
46. October 10, 2008, the Acting United States Attorney for the USAO proposed letter that John Doe fired based the medical information that had provided under the
Rehabilitation Act. The Acting United States Attorney re-disclosed the medical information
again the Executive Director the EOUSA act the Deciding Official the removal
47. January 15, 2009, the Executive Director for the EOUSA issued what
purported final decision removing John Doe from his appointed position Assistant
United States Attorney. The removal was based the medical information previously provided John Doe under the Rehabilitation Act. The removal was effective the date the action,
even though DOJ regulations provide that only the Attorney General may remove Assistant
United States Attorney for security reasons.
Defendant DOJ employees did not conduct any medical review, did not consult
any medical personnel, and did not follow its own regulations regarding assessment John
Doe ability maintain security status determine another reasonable accommodation that
would overcome his job-related limitations. Defendant DOJ employees also ignored the
clinical opinion John Doe own treating psychologist.
49. February 11, 2009, John Doe appealed his removal the United States Merit
Systems Protection Board. Because was required include with his appeal the proposal for
removal and the final decision, John Doe asked the MSPB place his case under seal and allow
him proceed using pseudonym. This request was made pursuant the Privacy Act and the
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Rehabilitation Act. DOJ was represented before the MSPB the same attorney who had
litigated against John Doe various disciplinary matters back 2004, and who also represented
DOJ connection with the removal process. DOJ opposed sealing and the use pseudonym,
even though the governing DOJ regulations would permit DOJ agree protect Privacy Act
information. Attorneys for DOJ falsely reported the MSPB Administrative Judge that DOJ
regulations prohibited them from consenting any sealing order use pseudonym. The
MSPB Administrative Judge denied the requests.
50. March 26, 2009, John Doe sought exhaust his administrative remedies with
the MSPB filing request certify the sealing/pseudonym decision the full Board. The
MSPB Administrative Judge denied the motion. The Privacy Act-protected personnel records
and medical records John Doe now are the public record the MSPB. addition, his
Order Motion Stay Proceedings, the MSPB Administrative Judge included Privacy Act
protected information the decision which bears John Doe name. This decision also
publicly available.
51. motions pending the district John Doe prior employment, defendants
sought retrial the case related the misconduct the rogue DEA agent (as described
Paragraph above) and identified John Doe witness. Several Defendant DOJ AUSAs
the district John Doe prior employment were attempting conceal their knowledge the
law enforcement agent prior misconduct which was the subject the new trial motions. These
employees were instrumental John Doe dismissal. There has been significant press coverage this scandal. John Doe was subpoenaed the defendants and testified before the federal
district court judge overseeing the new trial motions. The federal court found that the USAO had
committed Brady violations; however, the court found that reversal was not proper remedy.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Dozens persons were released from jail result the DEA agents misconduct, and the
United States paid undisclosed amounts settle civil lawsuits.
These actions were concerted effort the USAO through certain its
employees intimidate and coerce John Doe and humiliate and embarrass him the eyes
the public effort destroy his credibility witness the new trial motions. These
actions were also retaliation for numerous instances whistle blowing John Doe.
John Doe also sought unemployment compensation from the State his
residence. The USAO, acting behalf DOJ, re-disclosed John Doe medical and personnel
records third-party contractor known TALX. TALX, acting agent for the USAO,
appealed the award unemployment compensation. the appeal, TALX submitted the
unemployment commission behalf DOJ copies the Proposal for Removal and the Final
Decision Removal. Contained both these documents were the medical records John Doe well personnel records John Doe prior disciplinary record with the USAO. These
protected materials now are the public record.
Beginning August 25, 2009, the MSPB conducted administrative hearing
before the Honorable Stephen Manrose, Administrative Judge, John Doe appeal his
removal. John Doe alleged that his removal was pretextual and that his removal was the product discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act and reprisal for protected
whistleblower activity.
55. the MSPB administrative hearing, counsel for EOUSA stated that [i]f [the
Department Justice] made the security determination with respect [appellant] flipping
coin, pinning the tail the donkey doing any other thing, under Egan and the Board law,
you have right look behind .You only have right look the procedures afforded
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
him. This was articulation the Silver Bullet strategy that EOUSA and the USAO had
implemented against John Doe.
56. the hearing, the EOUSA attorneys ridiculed testimony from both John Doe
primary family physician and his treating psychologist. was the medical opinion these
doctors, used Doe pursue reasonable accommodation, which was distorted and improperly
used DOJ the basis for his security determination and removal.
57. October 27, 2009, following the administrative hearing, the MSPB
Administrative Judge made his initial decision regarding John Doe appeal, upholding the
agency removal decision the basis that the agency had presented strong, not irrefutable 
evidence for his removal based security grounds, and accordingly determining that need not
consider the particulars John Doe allegations retaliatory discrimination.
John Doe petitioned the full MSPB for review the initial decision December
15, 2009, citing constitutional error warranting reversal the agency decision.
59. its opinion August 2012, the full MSPB Board agreed that John Doe had
been denied established procedures DOJ for review the decision revoke his eligibility for security clearance. More specifically, the MSPB declared that John Doe had right review the Access Review Committee ARC following EOUSA determination withdraw his
eligibility for access classified information, and remanded the matter DOJ apply its
internal procedures, including review ARC, for reviewing decision withdraw
employee eligibility for access classified information under C.F.R. part 17. The Board
opinion also stated that could not decide claim discrimination appeal based
suspension revocation access classified material because may not under Egan.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
60. fulfilling the MSPB remand order, John Doe and the EOUSA made
presentations the ARC November 2012. January 23, 2013, the ARC issued initial
decision finding that there was insufficient evidence support the EOUSA and USAO
revocation John Doe eligibility for security clearance. However, rather than simply
overturning the revocation and reinstating John Doe, DOJ, through the ARC,directed that Doe
submit independent psychological and psychiatric examinations experts selected the
Federal Bureau Investigation FBI There are existing procedures under which DOJ
the ARC could compel John Doe submit these examinations. John Doe was longer
DOJ employee, and DOJ and EOUSA did not obtain such examination when John Doe was employee and rejected John Doe offer submitting independent examination 2008.
Although longer employee DOJ, John Doe voluntarily submitted
medical tests and examination May and May 24, 2013, psychologist and psychiatrist
selected the FBI and experts national and workplace security. Both concluded that there
was obstacle Doe eligibility for security clearance, that Doe was not danger himself others, that basis existed under the Adjudicative Guidelines deny Doe clearance, and
that Doe should given reasonable accommodation the workplace. These results were
communicated the EOUSA for comment July 17, 2013.
62. response the favorable results these ARC mandated medical
examinations, DOJ responded writing letter ARC September 2013, requesting that
uphold the revocation John Doe security clearance. Despite the MSPB explicit remand
order that ARC review occur, DOJ requested that ARC focus solely the evidence and events
available the deciding official 2008. further challenged the validity the medical tests
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
mandated ARC foolishly suggesting that Doe could alter his behavior manner
sufficient deceive the medical examiners.
63. date, John Doe has not been reinstated his former employment DOJ, nor
have his discrimination claims been adjudicated MSPB any other body.
COUNT Violation the Rehabilitation Act
John Doe repeats each and every allegation contained all preceding paragraphs
and incorporates the same herein.
Defendant DOJ agency defined under the Rehabilitation Act,
amended, U.S.C. 794 seq.
John Does employment constitutes program activity federal agency,
covered under U.S.C. 794 seq.
Defendant DOJ and its constituent United States Attorney Offices are obligated
not exclude any person, solely the reason their disability, from participating
receiving the benefit any program activity conducted any Executive agency.
Between June 2008 and January 2009, AUSAs and other employees the USAO the district which John Doe was assigned intentionally and/or willfully failed act John
Does reasonable accommodation request, and instead demoted him unit work with
persons who were the subject his prior disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Act.
When John Doe, award-winning prosecutor, asked given different assignment, AUSAs
and other employees the USAO failed act, violation U.S.C. 794, and instead,
illegally discriminated against John Doe denying him employment the basis his
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
The Rehabilitation Act and the Department Justices own USAPs, promulgated
under the Act, require DOJ participate Interactive Process which should include
analysis the particular job determine its purpose and essential functions; consulting with
the employee determine his her job-related limitations and how they may overcome with accommodation; identifying possible accommodations and their effectiveness;
consideration the employees preferences and selection accommodation that
appropriate for both employee and employer; and the overall needs the Office. None
those things occurred.
Defendant DOJ instead used the information fire John Doe. John Doe
condition the time was and susceptible accommodation the workplace. DOJ failed
afford him the protections the Rehabilitation Act.
71. direct and proximate cause the violation the Rehabilitation Act
Defendant DOJ, the Plaintiff has suffered damages, including but not limited to, actual pecuniary
damages and actual non-pecuniary damages the form direct and indirect injury Plaintiff
reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, physical upset, emotional upset, mental
anguish, physical pain and suffering, and damage career and professional reputation.
Plaintiff damages are ongoing and continuing.
72. direct and proximate cause the violation the Rehabilitation Act
Defendant DOJ, the Plaintiff has incurred attorney fees and costs his defense.
COUNT MSPB Failure Reverse Agency Action
John Doe repeats each and every allegation contained all preceding paragraphs
and incorporates the same herein.
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Defendant MSPB independent, quasi-judicial agency the Executive
branch established Congress under the Civil Service Reform Act 1978 (CSRA).
John Doe was employee DOJ, agency whose employee actions are
reviewable MSPB.
John Doe was removed from employment DOJ after the agency improperly
used medical information conclude, improper procedural means, that Doe was longer
eligible for security clearance that was required for his employment.
John Doe appealed his wrongful removal from employment the MSPB
February 11, 2009. Doe appealed the decision the first MSPB Administrative Judge, which
concluded that his removal was not improper, the MSPB Board.
Title C.F.R. 1201.56(b) requires MSPB overturn the action the agency the appellant shows harmful error the application the agencys procedures arriving
its decision; the decision was based any prohibited personnel practice described U.S.C.
 2302(b); that the decision was not accordance with law.
The MSPB Board concluded its opinion August 2012, that the agency,
DOJ, erroneously substituted its own review procedures make determination remove
Doe eligibility for security clearance, and held that ARC review the only appropriate
procedural requirement prior such determination.
EOUSA also committed error its improper use medical testimony for the
purposes determining John Doe security clearance eligibility and subsequent removal.
DOJ decision remove John Does security clearance was based upon
retaliation for his whistleblower behavior and requests for reasonable accommodations under the
Rehabilitation Act, which prohibited personnel practice under U.S.C. 2302(b).
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Furthermore, the MSPB Board concluded that removal John Doe without
access the ARC review required under plain reading Exec. Order No. 12,698 and
C.F.R. part was not accordance with law.
Contrary C.F.R. 1201.56(b), which requires that MSPB reverse the agency
action the aforementioned circumstances, MSPB failed reverse the agency action and
instead remanded the agency for over. 
Upon remand DOJ, and despite ARC finding favorable John Doe, DOJ
has refused reinstate Doe his former employment and has not complied with the terms
the MSPB remand order.
85. direct and proximate cause the error Defendant MSPB, the Plaintiff has
suffered damages from loss agency employment which should have been reinstated the
MSPB upon application the proper legal standards. Plaintiff damages are ongoing and
continuing. This Court should reverse the MSPB remand order and direct the MSPB order
John Doe reinstatement with back pay, benefits, and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief from this Court, follows:
Award Plaintiff damages, subject proof and amount determined
trial, for violating Plaintiff rights under the Rehabilitation Act, including but not limited
actual, compensatory damages for, inter alia, harm reputation and embarrassment and
humiliation, physical injury, pecuniary loss, well for damage Plaintiff career;
Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
Award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney fees;
Reverse the decision the MSPB and order John Doe reinstated his original
position with back pay, benefits, and attorney fees; and,
Grant such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff John Doe demands trial jury all issues and facts triable jury under
the laws and Constitution the United States.
October 10, 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
_____/s/ Michael Hannon_____ Michael Hannon, #352526
1901 18th Street,
Washington, 20009
(202) 232-1907
Fax: (202) 232-3704
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document Filed 10/10/13 Page
CERTIFICATE SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that copy the foregoing Complaint was sent via electronic
mail through this court filing system and via First Class mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day
October, 2012 to:
Ronald Machen, Jr.
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street,
Washington, DC, 20530
Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC, 20530
Hillary Stern
Civil Division
Department Justice
Attn: Classification Unit
8th Floor
1100 Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Deborah Miron
Merit Systems Protection Board
Director Regional Operations and Chief Administrative Judge
1615 Street,
Washington, D.C. 20419
William Spencer
Merit Systems Protections Board
Clerk the Board
1615 Street,
Washington, D.C. 20419
_____/s/ Michael Hannon_____ Michael Hannon
Case 1:13-cv-01564-KBJ Document 1-1 Filed 10/10/13 Page
,9,/ 29(5 6+((7 5HY 3/$,17,))6
John Doe
(1) U.S. Department Justice, (2) Hon. Eric Holder, Jr.,
(3) Merit Systems Protection Board
2817< 5(6,(1( ),567 /,67( ()(1$17 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3/$,17,)) $6(6 21/< 2817< 5(6,(1( ),567 /,67( 3/$,17,)) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(;(37 3/$,17,)) $6(6
127( /$1 21(01$7,21 $6(6 86( 7+( /2$7,21 7+( 75$7 /$1 ,192/9(