Full Opinion

Case: 26-1704 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADAM BRUZZESE, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2026-1704 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. NY-1221-24-0233-W-1. ______________________ Decided: November 9, 2026 ______________________ ADAM BRUZZESE, Farmingdale, NY, pro se. KELLY WINSHIP, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. ______________________ Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 26-1704 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2026 2 BRUZZESE v. MSPB Adam Bruzzese appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his Individual Right of Action whistleblower appeal under the doctrine of collat- eral estoppel. We affirm. I Mr. Bruzzese has been an employee at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms since at least 2008. In 2009, he was permanently reassigned from his previous law enforcement position at the agency to his current, non- law enforcement position at the agency. The reassignment occurred due to a supervisor’s concern about Mr. Bruzz- ese’s behavior. Mr. Bruzzese has contested this reassignment for 16 years in at least five previous cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, United States fed- eral courts, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. His 2020 Board appeal, for example, claimed that the reassign- ment action was in retaliation for his alleged whistleblow- ing disclosures 1 and that he was denied due process in the reassignment. That case was dismissed for lack of jurisdic- tion. S.A. 48. 2 In this case, first filed in 2024, Mr. Bruzzese again claimed that his 2009 reassignment action was retaliation against him for his alleged whistleblowing activity. He also claimed that he was denied due process in 2009 due to de- ficiencies in the written notice of his reassignment. The ad- ministrative judge dismissed Mr. Bruzzese’s claims, 1 Mr. Bruzzese had alleged that he made a protected disclosure when he disclosed that a 2008 memo about his behavior was false. 2 S.A. refers to the Supplemental Appendix attached to the Respondent’s Brief. ECF No. 14. Case: 26-1704 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2026 BRUZZESE v. MSPB 3 finding that they were barred by collateral estoppel. 3 S.A. 9. Mr. Bruzzese timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). II We set aside a Board decision only if it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac- cordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re- quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review de novo the Board’s application of col- lateral estoppel. SynQor, Inc v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “[T]he Board may apply collateral estoppel where: (i) the issue previously adjudicated is identical with that now presented, (ii) that issue was actually litigated in the prior case, (iii) the previous determination of that issue was necessary to the end-decision then made, and (iv) the party precluded was fully represented in the prior action.” Morgan v. Dep’t of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2005). III We have reviewed the Board’s decision that Mr. Bruzz- ese’s claims were barred by collateral estoppel. We agree and find that his claims are barred. First, Mr. Bruzzese’s claims in this case—that his re- assignment was retaliatory and did not comport with due process—are identical to the claims he raised before the Board in 2020. In that proceeding, the administrative judge found that Mr. Bruzzese failed to allege facts to es- tablish jurisdiction for the retaliation claim. S.A. 51–56. 3 The administrative judge’s initial decision became the final decision of the Board because of a lack of quorum. S.A. 1. Case: 26-1704 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2026 4 BRUZZESE v. MSPB The administrative judge also found that Mr. Bruzzese’s due process claim was untimely for the 2009 reassignment because the claims were being raised nine years after the agency’s challenged action. S.A. 57 n.4. In this case, first filed before the Board in 2024, the administrative judge found that the allegations raised in the 2020 and 2024 cases were identical. S.A. 8. We agree. Mr. Bruzzese raises issues in this case regarding the same alleged whistleblower retaliation and the same alleged due process violations that were previously adjudicated. 4 Ac- cordingly, we find the first element of collateral estoppel is met. Second, the identical issues raised in this case were ac- tually litigated before the Board in 2020. In the 2020 pro- ceedings, the administrative judge made jurisdictional findings that Mr. Bruzzese failed to exhaust administra- tive remedies and that he failed to establish a prima facie case for whistleblowing retaliation or any other claims, in- cluding a due process violation. See S.A. 51–58. In this case, the administrative judge reviewed and confirmed that the issues were actually litigated and nec- essary to the disposition of the 2020 case. S.A. 8. We agree with this finding. Accordingly, we find that the second and third elements of collateral estoppel are met. Finally, Mr. Bruzzese, who is the party precluded in this case, fully represented himself in the 2020 proceed- ings. S.A. 8–9. Accordingly, we find that the fourth element of collateral estoppel is met. 4 We find that the 5th and 13th Amendment claims raised in this case, Pet. Reply Br. 1, are substantially the same as the due process claims raised in the 2020 proceed- ings. Case: 26-1704 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2026 BRUZZESE v. MSPB 5 Since all the elements of collateral estoppel are met in this case, we agree with the Board that the doctrine bars Mr. Bruzzese’s claims. IV We have considered Mr. Bruzzese’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, Mr. Bruzzese’s claims are collaterally estopped, and we af- firm the Board’s dismissal of his Individual Right of Action appeal. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.