Diane Roy v. Department of Agriculture

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DIANE ROY,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1652
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DA-0432-20-0133-B-1.
______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Diane Roy appealed her removal to the Merit Systems
Protection Board asserting, among other things, that a ba-
sis for her removal was age/race discrimination, whistle-
blowing retaliation, and reprisal for prior equal
employment opportunity activity. In response to the
court’s show cause order, Ms. Roy indicates that she does
“not want [her] discrimination case dismissed,” and if this
court does not possess jurisdiction, she is “sure [this court]
will forward it to the right court.” ECF No. 11 at 1. The
Case: 25-1652 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

ROY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2
Department of Agriculture requests transfer to the United
States District Court for the for the Eastern District of Lou-
isiana. ECF No. 10 at 8.
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
allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an al-
legation that a basis for the action was covered discrimina-
tion or retaliation, id. § 7702. 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 employ-
ment opportunity activity “falls outside [of the court’s] ju-
risdictional reach”). Here, Ms. Roy alleged that her
removal was based, at least in part, on covered discrimina-
tion such that her case belongs in district court. Under
such circumstances, we find it appropriate to transfer to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, where the employment action appears to have
occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
September 12, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1652 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 2 of 2 --