Charles D. Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLES D. ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2087
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0148-I-1.
-------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2098
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0159-I-1.
Case: 24-2087 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 2
-------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DERRICK ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2099
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0188-I-1.
-------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DERECK ADAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2106
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-3443-23-0215-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2087 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 3
O R D E R
In response to the court’s order to show cause, Charles
D. Adams urges this court to decide his petitions for review
and moves to reform the captions and for leave to proceed
in formal pauperis. The Merit Systems Protection Board
moves to summarily affirm its decisions.
Years after this court affirmed Mr. Adams’s removal
from the Department of Defense following revocation of his
security clearance1, he filed these appeals at the Board, as-
serting that members of federal agencies committed “mis-
conduct” by “losing or destroying relevant records and vital
evidence in [a] discrimination case,”2 “not protecting their
employee from [d]iscrimination,”3 and “knowingly and in-
tentionally making [him] unemployable.”4
The Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding
that Mr. Adams was not challenging personnel actions ap-
pealable to the Board and, to the extent he was attempting
to file an individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, he had
failed to exhaust administrative remedies at the Office of
Special Counsel (“OSC”). Mr. Adams petitions for review
and states that he asserted a discrimination claim before
the Board and does not wish to abandon that claim.
1 See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
2 Appeal No. 2024-2087, ECF No. 5 at 4; Appeal No.
2024-2098, ECF No. 5 at 4 (capitalization omitted).
3 Appeal No. 2024-2099, ECF No. 5 at 4
4 Appeal No. 2024-2106, ECF No. 5 at 4 (capitalization
omitted).
Case: 24-2087 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 4
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] dis-
crimination.” 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); see Perry v. Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420, 431 (2017). We need
not definitively resolve whether Mr. Adams brought a
“case[] of discrimination” here because, regardless of how
we would answer that question, we would dismiss.
If Mr. Adams is only raising allegations divorced from
any personnel action plausibly appealable to the Board, we
would conclude that dismissal is appropriate because Mr.
Adams has failed to identify any arguable basis for the
Board’s jurisdiction except for perhaps as a prohibited per-
sonnel practice, and he does not deny failing to first seek
corrective action with OSC as required by statute.5, 6 We
would reach the same conclusion if Mr. Adams is instead
trying to relitigate his prior case. It would not be in the
interest of justice to transfer after Mr. Adams already fully
litigated, and lost, these claims in his prior cases.
5 See 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3) (“Except in a case in which
an employee, former employee, or applicant for employ-
ment has the right to appeal directly to the Merit Systems
Protection Board under any law, rule, or regulation, any
such employee, former employee, or applicant shall seek
corrective action from the Special Counsel before seeking
corrective action from the Board.”)
6 To the extent Mr. Adams intended to file IRA ap-
peals, “IRA appeals . . . by definition are never ‘mixed
cases.’” Young v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 961 F.3d 1323, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2020).
Case: 24-2087 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

ADAMS v. MSPB 5
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Board’s motion is granted to the extent that
the above-captioned appeals are dismissed.
(2) All remaining pending motions in the above cap-
tioned appeals are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs as to each of
these cases.
November 19, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-2087 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 5 of 5 --