Jason Boyd v. Department of the Interior

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JASON BOYD,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1715
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-0752-19-0297-I-5.
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Jason Boyd filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Pro-
tection Board challenging his removal from federal service
and raising, in relevant part, an affirmative defense of dis-
crimination. The Board’s final decision affirmed his re-
moval. He petitioned this court for review and his filings
indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimi-
nation claim. ECF No. 4 at 1–3; ECF No. 5-1 at 2–3; ECF
Case: 24-1715 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

BOYD v. INTERIOR 2
No. 1-3 at 35.1 Responding to this court’s show cause order,
each party responds that the appropriate forum for this
case is the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
We transfer this case. Federal district courts, not this
court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination sub-
ject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action ap-
pealable to the Board and an allegation that a basis for the
action was covered discrimination. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot.
Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Mr. Boyd continues to
pursue the allegations he made before the Board that his
removal was the result of covered discrimination, so juris-
diction to review the Board’s decision lies in district court.
We agree with the parties that transfer to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
where the employment action appears to have occurred, is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
1 While Mr. Boyd’s earlier Statement Concerning
Discrimination states that he does “not [choose] to main-
tain discrimination, retaliation claims if it means electing
to do so causes a deadline to be missed with another Court,”
ECF No. 4 at 2, his most recent submission indicates that
he wishes to maintain his discrimination claims in district
court. ECF No. 13-1 at 1.
Case: 24-1715 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

BOYD v. INTERIOR 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
July 30, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1715 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 07/30/2024

-- 3 of 3 --