Court Opinion

ID: 9909460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:01:41.062688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:24.806172
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1309    Document: 55     Page: 1   Filed: 12/13/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    BLAKE YOUNG,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                  Respondent

         UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
                     Intervenor
               ______________________

                        2023-1309
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in Nos. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1, NY-752S-17-0024-B-1.
                 ______________________

    Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM
                        ORDER
     Blake Young seeks review of two related Merit System
 Protection Board decisions—Young v. United States Postal
 Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1, 2022 WL
 3696854 (Aug. 26, 2022) (“I-1 matter”) and Young v. United
 States Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-752S-17-0024-
Case: 23-1309    Document: 55     Page: 2    Filed: 12/13/2023

 2                                            YOUNG v. MSPB

 B-1, 2022 WL 17587692 (Dec. 9, 2022) (“B-1 matter”)—dis-
 missing his appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
     In the I-1 matter, Mr. Young filed an appeal challeng-
 ing a 2016 agency action placing him in an “emergency off-
 duty status without pay” only five days after the agency
 action. See SAppx. 1 16. Mr. Young “disputed the agency’s
 reasons for placing him in such status and raised claims of
 harmful procedural error and discrimination.” Id. 2 The
 administrative judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction be-
 cause the Board only has jurisdiction over suspensions that
 are more than fourteen days. On August 26, 2022, the
 Board issued its final decision in the I-1 matter affirming
 dismissal. However, the Board noted “appellant submit-
 ted . . . pay stubs” with accruals of leave without pay that
 the “administrative judge and the agency did not address.”
 SAppx. 24. As such, the Board found “[Mr. Young’s] alle-
 gations, when viewed in light of the aforementioned evi-
 dence, constitute a claim that, since the time that he filed
 the instant appeal, he might have been suspended for more
 than 14 days,” which would establish an appealable action
 to the Board. SAppx. 25. Therefore, the Board forwarded
 the I-1 matter to the New York Field Office for docketing
 as a new appeal—the B-1 matter—to adjudicate

     1   “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix that
 the respondent filed concurrently with its informal brief.
     2   The Port Chester Postmaster placed Mr. Young in
 emergency off-duty status without pay following
 Mr. Young’s “outburst” in connection with a car accident
 and a required medical exam. See SAppx. 16, 45–46. From
 the record, it appears that when the Postmaster questioned
 Mr. Young, he “yell[ed]” that he should not be singled out
 to take the medical exam, claimed that white carriers did
 not have to take the exam and the requirement was im-
 posed to “put[] down the black man,” and refused to take
 the exam. SAppx. 128, 132; see also SAppx. 53–55.
Case: 23-1309      Document: 55      Page: 3     Filed: 12/13/2023

 YOUNG v. MSPB                                                  3

 Mr. Young’s claim. Id. The administrative judge issued a
 decision on December 9, 2022, dismissing the B-1 matter.
 This court received Mr. Young’s appeal of both the I-1 and
 B-1 matters on December 12, 2022.
     Because Mr. Young asserted that he did not wish to
 abandon his discrimination claim on judicial review, see
 ECF No. 3 4; ECF No. 7 at 4, 6, this court directed the par-
 ties to show cause why these cases should not be trans-
 ferred. ECF No. 16 at 2–3. The parties’ responses were
 included in their respective informal responsive briefing.
 ECF Nos. 30 (Intervenor Response Brief), 32 (Respondent
 Response Brief).
     Having now considered the briefs, we transfer the ap-
 peals of the I-1 matter and B-1 matter to the United States
 District Court for the Southern District of New York be-
 cause they are “mixed case[s]” that we lack jurisdiction
 over. See Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 431–
 32 (2017).
     The related I-1 matter and B-1 matter are mixed cases
 because, in each filed complaint, Mr. Young “complained of
 personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB”—
 here, a suspension for more than 14 days—and “alleged
 that the personnel action was based on discrimination.”
 Perry, 582 U.S. at 432 (quotations and alterations omit-
 ted); see SAppx. 2, 45–46, 99–110; ECF No. 4; ECF No. 7
 at 4, 6. “Judicial review of such a case lies in district court.”
 Perry, 582 U.S. at 432. Therefore, we find it appropriate to
 transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Southern District of
 New York, where the employment action occurred.
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:

     3   “ECF No.” refers to the electronic filing system’s
 docket number assigned to a filing at the Court of Appeals
 for the Federal Circuit.
Case: 23-1309    Document: 55     Page: 4    Filed: 12/13/2023

 4                                            YOUNG v. MSPB

     The appeal of MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1
 and the appeal of MSPB Docket No. NY-752S-17-0024-B-1
 are transferred. The petition for review and all the filings
 are transmitted to the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
 § 1631.

                                              FOR THE COURT

 December 13, 2023
      Date