Court Opinion

ID: 9959747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:00:51.346436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:52.044200
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1430    Document: 10     Page: 1   Filed: 04/12/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  VELESA DRAUGHN,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2024-1430
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0752-17-0527-I-1.
                 ______________________

     Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Following this court’s February 22, 2024 show cause
 order, Velesa Draughn urges this court not to dismiss or
 transfer this matter, while the Department of the Army
 urges transfer.
     The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the
 Army’s removal of Ms. Draughn, rejecting her affirmative
 defenses that the removal was based on disability discrim-
 ination and retaliation for protected Equal Employment
 Opportunity (“EEO”) activity. Ms. Draughn seeks judicial
Case: 24-1430     Document: 10     Page: 2    Filed: 04/12/2024

 2                                           DRAUGHN v. ARMY

 review of the MSPB’s decision and her affirmative de-
 fenses.
     “Because [Ms. Draughn] complained of a personnel ac-
 tion serious enough to appeal to the MSPB”—here, her re-
 moval—“and alleged that the personnel action was based
 on,” among other things, “discrimination, [s]he brought a
 mixed case.” Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420,
 432 (2017) (cleaned up); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). “Judicial
 review of such a case lies in district court.” Perry, 582 U.S.
 at 432. Under the circumstances, we agree that transfer to
 the United States District Court for the District of Mary-
 land (where the employment action appears to have oc-
 curred) is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
 United States District Court for the District of Maryland
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 April 12, 2024
      Date