Court Opinion

ID: 9891381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 15:01:40.343758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:20.550920
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2016    Document: 17      Page: 1    Filed: 10/18/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                    VIRGIL ROGERS,
                       Petitioner

                              v.

       MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                         2023-2016
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0752-17-0123-I-1.
                 ______________________

   Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s
 July 24, 2023, order to show cause, we now transfer the
 case to the United States District Court for the District of
 Columbia.
     The parties—and the court—agree that Virgil Rogers
 seeks judicial review of a Merit Systems Protection Board
 decision in a “[c]ase[] of discrimination subject to the pro-
 visions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), and
Case: 23-2016     Document: 17     Page: 2    Filed: 10/18/2023

 2                                             ROGERS v. MSPB

 that this so-called mixed case belongs in federal district
 court, Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420 (2017).
      Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the court may transfer
 the matter to a court where “the action or appeal could have
 been brought.” Mr. Rogers requests transfer to the United
 States District Court for the Eastern District of Washing-
 ton, where he states he currently resides. By contrast, the
 Board urges transfer to the United States District Court
 for the District of Columbia, where the underlying agency
 (Department of Defense) has its principal office.
     Because Mr. Rogers pursues a claim of discrimination
 under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this action is governed
 by the venue restrictions set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).
 See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) (“Cases of discrimination subject
 to the provisions of section 7702 of this title shall be filed
 under section 717(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
 U.S.C. 2000e–16(c)) . . . .”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c) (speci-
 fying a federal employee or applicant “may file a civil action
 as provided in section 2000e-5”).
     That statute sets venue in “any judicial district in the
 State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged
 to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the
 employment records relevant to such practice are main-
 tained and administered, or in the judicial district in which
 the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged
 unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not
 found within any such district, such an action may be
 brought within the judicial district in which the respondent
 has his principal office.” § 2000e-5(f)(3).
     From the record, the Eastern District of Washington
 satisfies none of those conditions. The court will instead
 transfer to the District of Columbia, leaving it for that
 court to address the proper respondent.
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-2016     Document: 17     Page: 3    Filed: 10/18/2023

 ROGERS v. MSPB                                             3

     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     The petition for review and all of the filings are trans-
 mitted to the United States District Court for the District
 of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                                FOR THE COURT

  October 18, 2023
       Date