Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHARLES DERECK ADAMS, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________

2025-1043 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-3443-23-0577-I-1. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s order to show cause, Charles Dereck Adams urges the court to decide his petition for re- view on the merits. The Merit Systems Protection Board responds in favor of this court’s jurisdiction and moves for summary affirmance. Mr. Adams separately moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2025

2 ADAMS v. MSPB

More than a decade after this court affirmed Mr. Ad- ams’s removal from the Department of Defense (DoD) fol- lowing revocation of his security clearance, 1 he filed this appeal at the Board asserting that the Department of Jus- tice (DOJ) “fail[ed] to apply equal justice to all” by neglect- ing to investigate his claims that DoD engaged in “conspiracy, collusion, and making false statements” in connection with the actions leading to his removal. ECF No. 7 at 5, 7; see also ECF No. 5 at 5-6. The Board dismissed Mr. Adams’s appeal, concluding that an alleged failure by the DOJ to investigate others was not a personnel action over which the Board possesses ju- risdiction. Moreover, to the extent Mr. Adams alleged dis- crimination, the Board explained that it lacked authority to adjudicate such claims in the absence of an appealable personnel action. Mr. Adams petitions for this court’s re- view and states that he asserted a discrimination claim be- fore the Board and does not wish to abandon that claim. This court has jurisdiction to review final Board deci- sions with one relevant exception: district courts have ju- risdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2)—i.e., mixed cases that involve (1) a non-frivolous allegation of “an action which the employee . . . may appeal to the” Board and (2) “that a basis for the action was [covered] discrimi- nation.” 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); see Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 431 (2017). We need not definitively re- solve whether Mr. Adams brought a “[c]ase[] of discrimina- tion” here because, regardless of how we would answer that question, we would dismiss.

1 See Adams v. Dep’t of Def., 688 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Case: 25-1043 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 01/31/2025

ADAMS v. MSPB 3

If Mr. Adams is only raising allegations that the DOJ improperly failed to investigate others, that is a claim di- vorced from any personnel action plausibly appealable to the Board, see 5 U.S.C. § 7512, and we would conclude that dismissal is appropriate because he has failed to identify any arguable basis for the Board’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time upon determination that an appeal is frivolous). We would reach the same conclusion if Mr. Adams is instead trying to relit- igate his prior removal case. It would not be in the interest of justice to transfer after Mr. Adams already fully liti- gated, and lost, these claims in his prior cases. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Board’s motion is granted to the extent that this case is dismissed. (2) All other pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

January 31, 2025 Date