Court Opinion

ID: 9911540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:01:14.204206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:46.519674
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1680     Document: 14   Page: 1   Filed: 12/20/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1680
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-3443-20-0832-I-1.
                 ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

    Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, 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 after his security clearance was revoked.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.
Case: 23-1680     Document: 14     Page: 2    Filed: 12/20/2023

 2                                              ADAMS v. MSPB

 Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012). He sub-
 sequently filed this appeal at the Board asserting officials
 of his former employing agency aided and abetted discrim-
 ination and requesting reinstatement to a job “wrongfully
 taken” from him. ECF No. 7 at 6. The Board dismissed the
 appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Adams alleged
 discrimination before the Board and he expressed an inter-
 est in pursuing those allegations on appeal of that dismis-
 sal, we directed the parties to address our jurisdiction.
     Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), we have jurisdiction to
 review final decisions of the Board except in “[c]ases of dis-
 crimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702.”
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), (b)(2). Although under Perry v.
 Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420, 431–32
 (2017), we lack jurisdiction over so-called mixed cases even
 when the Board dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, a mixed
 case is one that involves a non-frivolous allegation: (1) of
 “an action which the employee . . . may appeal to the” Board
 and (2) “that a basis for the action was [covered] discrimi-
 nation.” 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); see Perry, 582 U.S. at 431.
 We need not here resolve whether this is a mixed case be-
 cause we would dismiss regardless of how we would answer
 that question.
      If we were to construe Mr. Adams’ allegations before
 the Board as allegations of discrimination, divorced from
 any personnel action plausibly appealable to the Board, we
 would conclude that this is not a mixed case, but that dis-
 missal is appropriate. King v. Reid, 59 F.3d 1215, 1217–18
 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A claim of discrimination, standing alone,
 is insufficient to invoke the board’s jurisdiction.” (citation
 omitted)). We would reach the same outcome if taking the
 view that Mr. Adams’ attempts to relitigate his prior re-
 moval rendered this a mixed case, as it would not be in the
 interest of justice to transfer such a frivolous challenge
 that was adjudicated more than a decade ago.
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-1680    Document: 14      Page: 3    Filed: 12/20/2023

 ADAMS v. MSPB                                              3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The appeal is dismissed.
    (2) All pending motions are denied.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                              FOR THE COURT

 December 20, 2023
      Date