Anthony Bassett v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANTHONY BASSETT,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2225
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-20-0125-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK , CUNNINGHAM, and STARK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Anthony Bassett petitions this court to review the final
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing
for lack of jurisdiction his appeal alleging that he was con-
structively removed based in part on race and color dis-
crimination. Responding to this court’s show cause order,
Mr. Bassett moves this court to “exercise its Jurisdiction
Case: 24-2225 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

BASSETT v. MSPB 2
that it has over a portion of the case” and “transfer the Dis-
crimination Case to the District which has Jurisdiction
over the Discrimination portion,” ECF No. 18 at 1–2; see
also ECF No. 19. The Board urges transfer of the entire
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia or dismissal. In reply, Mr. Bassett
states that he “does not wish to dismiss this case in light
that this case may be sent to” the Eastern District of Vir-
ginia. ECF No. 21 at 2. We agree to transfer.
Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction
over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of
[5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation
of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that
a basis for the action was covered discrimination, 5 U.S.C.
§ 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437
(2017). Here, Mr. Bassett continues to pursue his discrim-
ination claim, so jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision
lies in district court, not in this court. Mr. Bassett is not
allowed to split his claims between two venues. See Wil-
liams v. Dep’t of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485, 1490 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (en banc) (holding that “Congress did not direct or
contemplate bifurcated review” of mixed cases because
claims of adverse action and discrimination “will be two
sides of the same question and must be considered to-
gether”); see also Pueschel v. Peters, 577 F.3d 558, 563 (4th
Cir. 2009). We agree with the Board that transfer to the
Eastern District of Virginia is appropriate under the cir-
cumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The motions, ECF Nos. 18 and 19, are granted to the
extent that the matter and all case filings are transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
Case: 24-2225 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

BASSETT v. MSPB 3
of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
January 10, 2025
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-2225 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 3 of 3 --