Michael Edward Stevenson, Jr. v. Department of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL EDWARD STEVENSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1418
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma in No. 5:24-cv-00084-J,
Judge Bernard M. Jones.
______________________
Before L OURIE, M AYER, and D YK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s
show cause order, we retransfer this matter to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
for additional proceedings it deems appropriate.
The Department of Veterans Affairs removed Michael
Edward Stevenson, Jr. pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714. On
appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the
removal but left undisturbed the administrative judge’s
Case: 25-1418 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

STEVENSON v. DVA 2
rejection of Mr. Stevenson’s affirmative defense of retalia-
tion for his filing of an Equal Employment Opportunity
complaint alleging discrimination.
Mr. Stevenson initially sought this court’s review of the
Board’s decision. Because Mr. Stevenson’s filings indicated
that he wished to pursue his claims “for racial and disabil-
ity discrimination” based on the Board’s final decision, Ap-
peal No. 2024-1077, ECF No. 10 at 2, the court transferred
to the Western District of Oklahoma. Appeal No. 2024-
1077, ECF No. 15 at 2. Once transferred, Mr. Stevenson
filed an amended complaint confirming claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
On January 29, 2025, the district court dismissed Mr.
Stevenson’s discrimination claims and transferred the
matter back to this court “for the Federal Circuit to address
any remaining nondiscrimination claims.” Appeal No.
2025-1418, ECF No. 1-2 at 4. In response to this court’s
show cause order issued shortly after docketing, Mr. Ste-
venson indicates to the court that he does “not intend to file
a notice of appeal from the district court’s ruling on the ra-
cial and disability discrimination claim” and instead re-
quests this court now review “the remaining non-
discriminatory claims.” ECF No. 9 at 1.
Our jurisdiction to review final Board decisions does
not extend to “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the pro-
visions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). See 5
U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). Those so-called
“mixed cases” “shall be filed in district court.” Kloeckner v.
Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 50 (2012); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2);
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017).
Here, Mr. Stevenson alleged that the agency action was
based, at least in part, on covered discrimination such that
his case belonged in district court, prompting our transfer
of the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.
Case: 25-1418 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

STEVENSON v. DVA 3
We agree with the Department of Veterans Affairs that
the district court’s subsequent dismissal of Mr. Stevenson’s
discrimination claim did not divest that court of jurisdic-
tion over whatever remains of Mr. Stevenson’s claims or
otherwise convert this mixed case into one that we have
jurisdiction to review. As we held in Williams v. Depart-
ment of the Army, “where jurisdiction lies in the district
court under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), the entire action falls
within the jurisdiction of that court and this court has no
jurisdiction.” 715 F.2d 1485, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (en
banc); see Dedrick v. Berry, 573 F.3d 1278, 1281–82 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (holding that retransfer is appropriate because
we lack jurisdiction even after the dismissal of a discrimi-
nation claim); see also Punch v. Bridenstine, 945 F.3d 322,
330–31 (5th Cir. 2019) (noting that “every court of appeals
to consider the question has prohibited bifurcation”). Thus,
there is no plausible basis for our jurisdiction.
For these reasons, we grant the Department’s request
to retransfer the case back to the District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, so
that the district court may conduct appropriate proceed-
ings with respect to whatever remains in the case or enter
final judgment as appropriate.1
Accordingly,
1 The district court did not identify any live non-dis-
crimination issues and neither party identified such an is-
sue in their responses despite this court’s request that they
identify “what, if anything, is remaining that is subject to
judicial review” if Mr. Stevenson does not seek review of
the district court’s dismissal of his discrimination claims,
ECF No. 8 at 2. Nonetheless, we find it the better course—
given our clear lack of jurisdiction—for the district court to
resolve the matter.
Case: 25-1418 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 06/13/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

STEVENSON v. DVA 4
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This matter and all filings are transmitted to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Ok-
lahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
June 13, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1418 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 06/13/2025

-- 4 of 4 --