Jimmy I. Davis v. United States Postal Service

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JIMMY I. DAVIS,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1136
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. NY-0752-22-0089-B-1.
______________________
Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In response to our show cause order, Jimmy I. Davis
confirms that he raised covered discrimination claims to
the Merit Systems Protection Board as an affirmative de-
fense to his removal, confirms that he intends to pursue
those claims in his challenge to the Board’s adverse deci-
sion, and requests that we transfer his case to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. The
United States Postal Service (“USPS”) agrees that transfer
Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

DAVIS v. USPS 2
is appropriate but proposes the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
We agree that transfer is appropriate because federal
district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over
“[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5
U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an al-
legation of an action appealable to the Board and an alle-
gation that a basis for the action was covered
discrimination or retaliation, § 7702(a). Perry v. Merit Sys.
Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017); Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous.
& Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
that the affirmative defense of retaliation for prior equal
employment opportunity activity “falls outside [of the
court’s] jurisdictional reach”). This is such a case.
We agree with USPS that the District of New Jersey is
the appropriate district court rather than the D.C. district
court because New Jersey appears to be the location where
Mr. Davis was employed (and still resides), the alleged un-
lawful employment practice occurred, and the relevant em-
ployment records are maintained. 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see
§ 7703(b)(2) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)); 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f)(3) (permitting an action to be brought “in any
judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employ-
ment practice is alleged to have been committed[,] the em-
ployment records relevant to such practice are
maintained[,] or . . . the aggrieved person would have
worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice”).
Accordingly,
Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

DAVIS v. USPS 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for District of New Jersey pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
July 8, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 3 --