Raymond F. Justis v. Department of Agriculture

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAYMOND F. JUSTIS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1531
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. PH-0752-16-0188-I-1.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Having considered the responses to this court’s
July 27, 2023, order to show cause, we now transfer the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
This court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of
the Merit Systems Protection Board except in “[c]ases of
discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C.
§] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), involving an allegation of
an action appealable to the Board and an allegation of cov-
ered discrimination. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1); 28 U.S.C.
Case: 23-1531 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 10/25/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

JUSTIS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2
§ 1295(a)(9). Those cases belong instead in federal district
court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
582 U.S. 420 (2017); Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev.,
670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, consistent with
record evidence, see, e.g., ECF No. 20 at 70, the Board noted
that Raymond F. Justis was challenging his removal based,
in part, on allegations of retaliation for Equal Employment
Opportunity activities, and Mr. Justis’ filings with this
court indicate he continues to seek review of his discrimi-
nation claim. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this case.
Where we lack jurisdiction, and if it is in the interest of
justice, we shall transfer a case to an appropriate court. 28
U.S.C. § 1631. Mr. Justis requests transfer to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (the dis-
trict where he is currently incarcerated), but that does not
appear to be a proper venue. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2)
(“Cases of discrimination subject to the provisions of sec-
tion 7702 of this title shall be filed under section 717(c) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16(c)) . . . .”);
42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c) (specifying a federal employee or
applicant “may file a civil action as provided in section
2000e-5”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (providing that suit
may be brought “[i]n any judicial district in the State in
which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have
been committed, in the judicial district in which the em-
ployment records relevant to such practice are maintained
and administered, or in the judicial district in which the
aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged
unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not
found within any such district, such an action may be
brought within the judicial district in which the respondent
has his principal office”). Instead, we conclude that trans-
fer to the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Pennsylvania (where Mr. Justis worked prior to his
removal) is appropriate.
Accordingly,
Case: 23-1531 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 10/25/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

JUSTIS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This matter and all of the filings are transmitted to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
October 25, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 23-1531 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 10/25/2023

-- 3 of 3 --