Court Opinion

ID: 9881599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 15:01:38.782111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:54.924818
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1662     Document: 16    Page: 1    Filed: 10/03/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

       MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-1662
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-3443-21-0137-I-1.
                 ______________________

   Before DYK, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
    In response to the court’s order to show cause, the
 Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) moves to sum-
 marily affirm. Charles Dereck Adams opposes.
     This court previously affirmed Mr. Adams’ removal
 from the Department of Defense more than a decade ago
 after his security clearance was revoked. See Adams v.
 Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012). He sub-
 sequently filed this appeal at the Board arguing that the
 agency had discriminated against him in issuing a
Case: 23-1662     Document: 16     Page: 2    Filed: 10/03/2023

 2                                              ADAMS v. MSPB

 performance appraisal while he worked at the Department
 of Defense. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of ju-
 risdiction. Because Mr. Adams alleged discrimination be-
 fore the Board and he expressed an interest in pursuing
 those allegations on appeal of that dismissal, we directed
 the parties to address our jurisdiction.
      Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), this court has jurisdic-
 tion to review a final order or final decision of the Board
 except in “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions
 of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), (b)(2). Alt-
 hough under Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582
 U.S. 420, 431–32 (2017), we must ordinarily transfer so-
 called mixed cases to federal district court even when the
 Board dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, such cases must
 involve (1) a non-frivolous allegation of “an action which
 the employee . . . may appeal to the” Board and (2) “that a
 basis for the action was [covered] discrimination.” 5 U.S.C.
 § 7702(a)(1); see Perry, 582 U.S. at 431.
     This is not such a mixed case because Mr. Adams did
 not raise a non-frivolous allegation that he was subjected
 to an action appealable to the Board. Under long-standing
 precedent, “disagreement with a performance evaluation,
 unaccompanied by an otherwise appealable adverse action,
 is not independently appealable to the Board,” Manley v.
 Dep’t of Air Force, 91 F.3d 117, 119 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing
 5 U.S.C. § 7512), and Mr. Adams has failed to provide any
 cognizable basis to distinguish his case. To the extent that
 Mr. Adams contends review of the evaluation can be teth-
 ered to his alleged “wrongful and discriminatory revocation
 of [his security] clearances,” ECF No. 14 at 1 (emphasis
 omitted), we must reject that argument. As we recently
 explained to Mr. Adams, the Board also lacks jurisdiction
 to review the manner in which the security clearance revo-
 cation proceeding was conducted. Adams v. Merit Sys.
 Prot. Bd., Nos. 2023-1212 et al., 2023 WL 3493689, at *1
 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2023).
Case: 23-1662      Document: 16   Page: 3      Filed: 10/03/2023

 ADAMS v. MSPB                                               3

     We agree with the government that it further follows
 that summary affirmance is appropriate here since there is
 no non-frivolous basis for the assertion of Board jurisdic-
 tion. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
 1994) (finding summary affirmance appropriate where “no
 substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
 exists.” (citation omitted)); Manley, 91 F.3d at 119; Adams,
 2023 WL 3493689, at *1. *
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The decision of the Board is summarily affirmed.
     (2) Any pending motions are denied as moot.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 October 3, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
       Date                            Jarrett B. Perlow
                                       Clerk of Court

     *    For the same reasons, even if this were a mixed
 case where we lacked jurisdiction, transfer under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1631 to a district court would not be “in the interest of
 justice.”