Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/19/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHARLES D. ADAMS, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Respondent ______________________

2024-2108 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-3443-23-0306-I-1. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s order to show cause, Charles D. Adams urges the court to decide his petition for review and moves to reform the caption and for leave to proceed in forma paperis. The Department of Defense urges dismissal or, in the alternative, transfer. Years after this court affirmed Mr. Adams’s removal from the Department of Defense after revocation of his Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/19/2024

2 ADAMS v. DEFENSE

security clearance, 1 he filed this appeal at the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board, asserting that members of the Mis- sile Defense Agency committed “misconduct” and “wrongfully and discriminatorily terminated” him. 2 The Board dismissed the appeal as barred by res judicata. We have jurisdiction to review final decisions from the Board, except in “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. §§ 7703(b)(2), (b)(1)(A). Those so-called mixed cases, which involve ap- peals to the Board and allegations of covered discrimina- tion, 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1), instead belong in district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017). When this court lacks jurisdiction, we can transfer to another court where the case “could have been brought at the time it was filed,” but only if transfer is “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Department contends that transfer of this mixed case would not be in the interest of justice, and we agree. Mr. Adams has already fully litigated, and lost, his chal- lenge to his removal, including his arguments concerning discrimination. See Adams, 688 F.3d at 1334 (noting nei- ther the courts nor the Board have authority to review the allegation that retaliation and discrimination were the rea- sons for termination following revocation of the requisite security clearance). Under such circumstances, dismissal, not transfer, is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed.

1 See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 2 ECF No. 5 at 5 Case: 24-2108 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/19/2024

ADAMS v. DEFENSE 3

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

November 19, 2024 Date