NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KENNETH R. KENT,

Petitioner

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent

______________________

2023-1329

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0752-17-0171-I-1.

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Because Kenneth R. Kent pursued discrimination 

claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board and 

stated that he does not wish to abandon those claims on 

judicial review, the court directed the parties to show cause 

why this case should not be transferred to a United States 

district court. The agency’s response urges transfer to the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

where Mr. Kent appears to currently reside. Mr. Kent responds and continues to argue his discrimination claim. 

Case: 23-1329 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024
2 KENT v. SSA

Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction 

over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of 

[5 U.S.C.] § 7702,” i.e., cases involving adverse actions appealable to the Board and allegations of covered discrimination. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017); 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1). This case 

indisputably meets those criteria. This court therefore 

lacks jurisdiction over this petition.

We may transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 

to a court where “the action or appeal could have been 

brought.” Because Mr. Kent pursues a claim of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this action is governed by the restrictions set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 

See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) (“Cases of discrimination subject 

to the provisions of section 7702 of this title shall be filed 

under section 717(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 

U.S.C. 2000e–16(c)) . . . .”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c) (specifying a federal employee or applicant “may file a civil action 

as provided in section 2000e-5”). 

That statute directs that such a case is set to be 

brought in “any judicial district in the State in which the 

unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment 

records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved 

person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within 

any such district, such an action may be brought within the 

judicial district in which the respondent has his principal 

office.” § 2000e-5(f)(3). The agency has not shown that 

transfer to the District of Arizona is appropriate. We instead transfer to the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado, where the employment action occurred.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 23-1329 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
KENT v. SSA 3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado.

February 5, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 23-1329 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2024