Court Opinion

ID: 9881643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 16:00:42.905116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:01.272601
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1754    Document: 15     Page: 1   Filed: 10/03/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 CHARLES D. ADAMS,
                     Petitioner

                             v.

      MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-1754
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DC-0752-21-0372-I-1.
                 ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

   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 for sum-
 mary affirmance. Charles D. Adams opposes.
      Mr. Adams served as an Information Technology Spe-
 cialist with the Missile Defense Agency of the Department
 of Defense. His position required him to have and maintain
Case: 23-1754     Document: 15     Page: 2    Filed: 10/03/2023

 2                                              ADAMS v. MSPB

 a Top-Secret security clearance. In 2010, Mr. Adams’ secu-
 rity clearance was revoked, resulting in his removal. He
 appealed his removal to the Board, which concluded that it
 lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the agency’s de-
 cision to remove Mr. Adams for failure to maintain the re-
 quired security clearance. We later affirmed the ruling
 with respect to the removal. See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688
 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
      In 2021, Mr. Adams filed the underlying appeal at the
 Board challenging the revocation of his security clearance
 as discriminatory. The Board dismissed the appeal on the
 ground that it lacked jurisdiction over an agency’s security
 clearance process or its determinations. Mr. Adams then
 filed this petition for review. Because Mr. Adams’ filings
 indicate that he raised a discrimination claim before the
 Board and wishes to continue to pursue that claim, we di-
 rected 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.
     We recently noted in several of Mr. Adams’ other cases
 that an appeal to the Board in which discrimination is as-
 serted does not constitute a “[c]ase[] of discrimination”
 where the petitioner fails to raise a non-frivolous allegation
 of Board jurisdiction over revocation of the security clear-
 ance. Adams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Nos. 2023-1212 et al.,
 2023 WL 3493689, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2023) (first
Case: 23-1754      Document: 15    Page: 3     Filed: 10/03/2023

 ADAMS v. MSPB                                               3

 citing Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988); and
 then citing Hesse v. Dep’t of State, 217 F.3d 1372, 1376–77
 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Because it was also clearly correct for the
 Board to dismiss such an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we
 summarily affirmed. Id. at *2.
     We agree with the Board that the same result is war-
 ranted in this case. As in his prior appeals, Mr. Adams’
 challenge to the revocation of his security clearance here
 does not allege that he was affected by an action appealable
 to the Board. Hence, this is not a “[c]ase[] of discrimina-
 tion” that belongs in district court. Summary affirmance is
 likewise appropriate here since there is no non-frivolous
 basis for the assertion of Board jurisdiction. 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” (cita-
 tion omitted)). *
     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 was a “[c]ase[] of
 discrimination” where we lacked jurisdiction, transfer un-
 der 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a district court would not be “in the
 interest of justice.”