Charles Dereck Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1043
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0577-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to the court’s order to show cause, Charles
Dereck Adams urges the court to decide his petition for re-
view on the merits. The Merit Systems Protection Board
responds in favor of this court’s jurisdiction and moves for
summary affirmance. Mr. Adams separately moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.
Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 2
More than a decade after this court affirmed Mr. Ad-
ams’s removal from the Department of Defense (DoD) fol-
lowing revocation of his security clearance,1 he filed this
appeal at the Board asserting that the Department of Jus-
tice (DOJ) “fail[ed] to apply equal justice to all” by neglect-
ing to investigate his claims that DoD engaged in
“conspiracy, collusion, and making false statements” in
connection with the actions leading to his removal. ECF
No. 7 at 5, 7; see also ECF No. 5 at 5-6.
The Board dismissed Mr. Adams’s appeal, concluding
that an alleged failure by the DOJ to investigate others was
not a personnel action over which the Board possesses ju-
risdiction. Moreover, to the extent Mr. Adams alleged dis-
crimination, the Board explained that it lacked authority
to adjudicate such claims in the absence of an appealable
personnel action. Mr. Adams petitions for this court’s re-
view and states that he asserted a discrimination claim be-
fore the Board and does not wish to abandon that claim.
This court has jurisdiction to review final Board deci-
sions with one relevant exception: district courts have ju-
risdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the
provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2)—i.e.,
mixed cases that 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] discrimi-
nation.” 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); see Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot.
Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 431 (2017). We need not definitively re-
solve whether Mr. Adams brought a “[c]ase[] of discrimina-
tion” here because, regardless of how we would answer that
question, we would dismiss.
1 See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 3
If Mr. Adams is only raising allegations that the DOJ
improperly failed to investigate others, that is a claim di-
vorced from any personnel action plausibly appealable to
the Board, see 5 U.S.C. § 7512, and we would conclude that
dismissal is appropriate because he has failed to identify
any arguable basis for the Board’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time upon
determination that an appeal is frivolous). We would reach
the same conclusion if Mr. Adams is instead trying to relit-
igate his prior removal case. It would not be in the interest
of justice to transfer after Mr. Adams already fully liti-
gated, and lost, these claims in his prior cases.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Board’s motion is granted to the extent that
this case is dismissed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
January 31, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 3 of 3 --