Court Opinion

ID: 9881863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 15:01:06.461122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.862670
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1853    Document: 12     Page: 1   Filed: 10/04/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                BRANDON T. WIEGAND,
                     Petitioner

                             v.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-1853
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-0752-18-0155-I-2.
                 ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

   Before DYK, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
      The Department of the Army moves to dismiss this pe-
 tition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Brandon T. Wie-
 gand opposes the motion, arguing that this court should
 exercise jurisdiction or alternatively transfer.
    Mr. Wiegand’s petition seeks review of the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board’s final decision sustaining his
Case: 23-1853     Document: 12     Page: 2    Filed: 10/04/2023

 2                                           WIEGAND v. ARMY

 removal and rejecting his affirmative defenses of reprisal
 for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunity activity
 and disability discrimination. Mr. Wiegand’s filings here
 indicate that he wishes to pursue his discrimination
 claims. See ECF No. 5 at 1–3. *
      In general, we have jurisdiction to review “a final order
 or final decision of the . . . Board,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9),
 except for “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provi-
 sions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). Those
 cases, involving appeals to the Board and claims of covered
 discrimination, § 7702, belong in district court. Perry v.
 Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017). Mr. Wie-
 gand brings such a case, and thus we lack jurisdiction. Mr.
 Wiegand argues that we have jurisdiction under a different
 provision (§ 7703(c)), but that provision merely provides
 the standard for our review while “preserving [the] ‘right
 to have the facts subject to trial de novo by the reviewing
 court’ in any ‘case of discrimination’ brought under
 § 7703(b)(2),” id. at 429 (citation omitted). There is no
 “doubt that the Federal Circuit lacks authority to adjudi-
 cate such claims” of discrimination. Id.
     Although the Department urges dismissal, we deem it
 more appropriate to grant Mr. Wiegand’s alternative re-
 quest to transfer this mixed case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
 § 1631, to the United States District Court for the Middle
 District of Pennsylvania, where he has a pending disability
 discrimination case, and to leave it to the district court to
 address any issues raised by the agency.

     *   While Mr. Wiegand’s response asks this court to
 deem his discrimination claims waived in order to retain
 jurisdiction if it determines that transfer is inappropriate,
 that request does not amount to an unconditional abandon-
 ment of his claims that might otherwise give us jurisdic-
 tion.
Case: 23-1853      Document: 12   Page: 3   Filed: 10/04/2023

 WIEGAND v. ARMY                                          3

    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion to dismiss is denied.
    (2) This case and all filings are transferred to the
 United States District Court for the Middle District of
 Pennsylvania.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 October 4, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
       Date                            Jarrett B. Perlow
                                       Clerk of Court