Coupar has had more than two and one-half years to file an opening brief, but he has failed to do so. Considering that Coupar is proceeding in this appeal without representation by counsel and that he is incarcerated, this Board has afforded him expansive latitude in achieving compliance with the Board's procedural requirements. This latitude, however, is not without bounds. As the Eleventh Circuit has observed:
In the courts, there is room for only so much lenity. The district court must consider the equities not only to plaintiff and his counsel, but also to the opposing parties and counsel, as well as to the public, including those persons affected by the court's increasingly crowded docket. … Deadlines are not meant to be aspirational; counsel must not treat the goodwill of the court as a sign that, as long as counsel tries to act, he has carte blanche permission to perform when he desires. A district court must be able to exercise its managerial power to maintain control over its docket …. This power is necessary for the court to administer effective justice and prevent congestion.[9 ]
Coupar has had more than two and one-half years to file an opening brief in this case, but he has failed to do so. Although he has been able to contact the Board both in writing and by telephone in the past, he has not done so since the Board issued the Order Re-establishing the Briefing Schedule, nor has he filed an opening brief as ordered.
[Page 4]
Thus, he has demonstrated a lack of due diligence. Accordingly, because Coupar has failed to timely file his opening brief, after the Board gave him ample opportunities to do so, we DISMISS his appeal.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 33 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (West 2001). The Secretary of Labor has delegated her authority to issue final administrative decisions in cases arising under the WPCA to the Administrative Review Board. Secretary's Order 1-2002 (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.1, 24.8 (2007). The WPCA's implementing regulations, found at 29 C.F.R. Part 24, have been amended since Coupar filed his complaint. 72 Fed. Reg. 44,956 (Aug. 10, 2007). We need not decide here whether the amendments would apply to this case, because even if the amendments applied, the amended provisions are not at issue in this case and thus the amendments would not affect our decision.
2 See e.g., McQuade v. Oak Ridge Operations Office, ARB No. 02-087, ALJ Nos. 1999-CAA-007 to 010 (ARB Oct. 18, 2002); Pickett v. TVA, ARB No. 02-076, ALJ No. 2001-CAA-018 (ARB Oct. 9, 2002).
3 See, e.g., Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1520 (10th Cir. 1988).
4 Order Re-Establishing the Briefing Schedule (Jan. 8, 2008).
5 Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
6 Id. at 630-631.
7 ARB No. 99-012, ALJ No. 1998-ERA-033 (Sept. 13, 2000).
8 Id., slip op. at 2. Accord Muggleston v. EG & G Def. Materials, ARB No. 04-060, ALJ No. 2002-SDW-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 30, 2004); Blodgett v. Tenn, Dep't of Env't & Conservation, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ No. 2003-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 19, 2004).
9 Young v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 864 (2004) (citations omitted).