Court Opinion

ID: 9959689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 15:01:07.105291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:44.711457
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1332     Document: 14    Page: 1    Filed: 04/12/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

           CLARENCE EDWARD BALDWIN,
                    Petitioner

                             v.

                DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
                         Respondent
                   ______________________

                         2024-1332
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-315H-20-0077-I-1.
                 ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

      Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     On January 31, 2024, this court issued a show cause
 order directing the parties to address whether this court
 had jurisdiction. The Department of Energy (“DOE”) re-
 sponds urging transfer. Clarence Edward Baldwin appears
 to assert in his motion (ECF No. 12) that this court has ju-
 risdiction, and he files a corrected statement concerning
Case: 24-1332     Document: 14      Page: 2    Filed: 04/12/2024

 2                                          BALDWIN v. ENERGY

 discrimination purporting to abandon his discrimination
 claims.
      Mr. Baldwin filed an Equal Employment Opportunity
 (“EEO”) complaint with DOE alleging discriminatory per-
 sonnel actions including alleged termination. DOE found
 no discrimination. Mr. Baldwin appealed that decision to
 the Merit Systems Protection Board, and, on Novem-
 ber 22, 2019, the Board’s administrative judge issued an
 initial decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, which the
 Board affirmed. Mr. Baldwin seeks this court’s review of
 the Board’s decision.
      Separately, Mr. Baldwin pursued review of the
 agency’s EEO decision with the Equal Employment Oppor-
 tunity Commission, which affirmed on July 12, 2021. On
 October 8, 2021, Mr. Baldwin filed suit in the United States
 District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting,
 among other things, an order “directing the Defendant to
 promote the Plaintiff to the position of GS-13 with back pay
 and benefits.” Baldwin v. Granholm, No. 21-cv-2646, Dkt.
 No. 1 at 8 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2021). That case remains pend-
 ing.
     This court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Baldwin’s peti-
 tion for review. Federal district courts, not this court, have
 jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the
 provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2)—i.e.,
 where an employee has made a non-frivolous allegation re-
 garding an action appealable to the Board and that the ac-
 tion was based, at least in part, on covered discrimination.
 Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017).
     Before the Board, Mr. Baldwin pursued discrimination
 claims raised in his EEO complaint. Now, Mr. Baldwin’s
 corrected statement concerning discrimination indicates
 that he “wish[es] to abandon those discrimination claims
 and only pursue civil-service claims in the Federal Circuit
 rather than pursu[e] discrimination claims and civil-ser-
 vice claims in district court,” ECF No. 12-2 at 19–21.
Case: 24-1332     Document: 14     Page: 3    Filed: 04/12/2024

 BALDWIN v. ENERGY                                           3

 However, Mr. Baldwin has not actually abandoned his dis-
 crimination claims; he simply seeks to pursue them in his
 pending district court case instead. That is not permitted.
 “Congress did not direct or contemplate bifurcated review”
 under these circumstances, Williams v. Dep’t of Army, 715
 F.2d 1485, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (en banc), so “a petitioner
 cannot challenge the non-discrimination issues here while
 challenging the discrimination issues in district court,”
 Punch v. NASA, No. 2016-1804, ECF No. 28 at 4 (Fed. Cir.
 Apr. 26, 2017).
     Under the circumstances, we agree with DOE that we
 lack jurisdiction because Mr. Baldwin is seeking overlap-
 ping relief from both this court and the district court. We
 further agree with DOE that transfer to the United States
 District Court for the District of Columbia (the district
 where Mr. Baldwin was employed and where his discrimi-
 nation claims are pending) is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C.
 § 1631.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) ECF No. 12 is denied.
     (2) This matter and all its filings are transferred to the
 United States District Court for the District of Columbia
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 April 12, 2024
      Date