Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
SHERYL TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
__________________________
2013-3037
__________________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT1221120255-W-1.
__________________________
ON MOTION
__________________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Sheryl Taylor moves for leave to supplement her in-
formal brief. She further moves for this court to order the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the United
States Department of the Treasury/IRS to appoint or
assign counsel to her, as well as to sanction the same for
withholding federal funds and denying counsel to her
Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2013
SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB 2
during her petition before the MSPB. Finally, Taylor
moves to strike the respondent’s pleadings in this appeal.
Ms. Taylor had previously moved for this court to or-
der the MSPB and the Department of the Treasury/IRS to
appoint or assign counsel. That request was denied
because this court has no procedure to appoint counsel for
a pro se litigant. We treat her subsequent motions for the
same relief as a motion for reconsideration. Because this
court does not have a procedure for appointing or assign-
ing counsel to pro se litigants, we deny the motion for
reconsideration.
Ms. Taylor’s informal brief addresses her argument
regarding the appointment of counsel by the MSPB.
Because it appears that Ms. Taylor’s request for sanctions
relating to appointment of counsel is intertwined with the
merits of her case, we deem it the better course to defer
the motion for sanctions to the merits panel.
Ms. Taylor also asks the court to strike the respond-
ent’s brief because of their failure to appoint her counsel.
We find that to be an insufficient basis to strike the
briefs. The respondent’s brief addresses the issue of
appointment of counsel by the MSPB. The merits panel
has discretion to determine the relevance of the argu-
ments presented in the parties’ briefs.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motions for reconsideration of appointment or
assignment of counsel are denied.
(2) The motion for sanctions is deferred for considera-
tion by the merits panel. Copies of that motion shall be
transmitted to the merits panel.
Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2013
3 SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB
(3) The motion to strike the respondent’s brief is de-
nied.
(4) The motion to supplement petitioner’s brief is
granted. Copies of the supplemental brief will be trans-
mitted to the merits panel.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s24