Charles D. Adams v. Department of Defense

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLES D. ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2108
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0306-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to the court’s order to show cause, Charles
D. Adams urges the court to decide his petition for review
and moves to reform the caption and for leave to proceed in
forma paperis. The Department of Defense urges dismissal
or, in the alternative, transfer.
Years after this court affirmed Mr. Adams’s removal
from the Department of Defense after revocation of his
Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

ADAMS v. DEFENSE 2
security clearance,1 he filed this appeal at the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board, asserting that members of the Mis-
sile Defense Agency committed “misconduct” and
“wrongfully and discriminatorily terminated” him.2 The
Board dismissed the appeal as barred by res judicata.
We have jurisdiction to review final decisions from the
Board, except in “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the
provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. §§ 7703(b)(2),
(b)(1)(A). Those so-called mixed cases, which involve ap-
peals to the Board and allegations of covered discrimina-
tion, 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1), instead belong in district court.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S.
420, 432 (2017). When this court lacks jurisdiction, we can
transfer to another court where the case “could have been
brought at the time it was filed,” but only if transfer is “in
the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The Department contends that transfer of this mixed
case would not be in the interest of justice, and we agree.
Mr. Adams has already fully litigated, and lost, his chal-
lenge to his removal, including his arguments concerning
discrimination. See Adams, 688 F.3d at 1334 (noting nei-
ther the courts nor the Board have authority to review the
allegation that retaliation and discrimination were the rea-
sons for termination following revocation of the requisite
security clearance). Under such circumstances, dismissal,
not transfer, is appropriate.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
1 See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
2 ECF No. 5 at 5
Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

ADAMS v. DEFENSE 3
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
November 19, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 3 of 3 --