NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3140

JOYCE BRANCH WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Joyce Branch Williams , of Baltimore, Maryland, pro se. Brian T. Edmunds , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Just ice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Kathryn A. Bleecker , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3140

JOYCE BRANCH WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: July 13, 2007

__________________________ Before MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges , and LINARES, District Judge

. ∗ PER CURIAM. Joyce Branch-Williams appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board” or “MSBP”) upholding her removal by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”). Williams v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , No. PH0752060522-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 2, 2007). As the Board lacked subj ect matter jurisdiction, we vacate and remand with

∗ Honorable Jose L. Linares, District J udge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.instructions to dismiss. 1
Branch-Williams filed a mixed case E qual Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint on October 26, 2005, electi ng to proceed under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations rather than MSPB r egulations for the issues in that complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614. 302. When she later f iled an appeal with the EEOC’s Office of Federal O perations, that agency dismissed most of her claims because, in the meantime, she had filed an action in the distri ct court alleging the same claims. Branch-Williams v. Nicholson , No. 0120063958 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 25, 2007); Branch-Williams v. Nicholson , No. 1:06-CV-01327 (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2007) (“ District Court ”). Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409, filing t he district court action terminated her EEOC appeal. This appeal came to the MSPB from Branc h-Williams’s Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) complaint alleging retaliation by the D VA. As the government correctly points out, a claimant cannot pursue re lief in the district court and then pursue the same relief at the MSPB. Connor v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 15 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1994). BranchWilliams presented claims for retaliation and discr imination to the dist rict court, covering the subject of both her EEO complaint and OSC complaint. District Court , slip op. at 7– 8. Therefore, she chose the distri ct court as her single forum. Indeed, the district court addressed the same issues now presented by this appeal. It considered the requirement under 38 U.S.C. § 7402(b)(9) that BranchWilliams obtain a license as an independent pr actitioner, and found that she did not

1 The Board did not address its jurisd iction, instead ruling for the DVA on the merits.

2007-3140 22007-3140 3 have such a license under Maryland law. District Court , slip op. at 14–15. It also rejected her argument that t he regulation did not place su ch a requirement on her. Id. , slip op. at 15–16. The court concluded that the DVA’s action was not a mere pretext for her removal, therefore denying her claim for retaliatory removal. Id. , slip op. at 16. The court considered Branch-Willia ms’s other claims and rejected them, granting summary judgment for the DVA. Id. , slip op. at 20. While Branch-Williams argues before this c ourt that the regulat ions do not apply, that argument is subsumed withi n the district court action. By choosing to pursue her case before the district c ourt, Branch-Williams has had her day in court. The Board should have dismissed her appeal as wit hout subject matter jurisdiction. Connor , 15 F.3d at 1066. Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision and rem and with instructions to dismiss for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction. No costs.