Cooke v. USPS

Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DAWANA COOKE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent ______________________ 2026-1576 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-22-0282-I-2. ______________________ Before PROST, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER In response to this court’s April 24, 2026, show-cause order, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) urges dis- missal or transfer. Dawana Cooke requests transfer if this court lacks jurisdiction. 1 We transfer.

1 We grant Ms. Cooke’s request to accept her late re- sponse.

Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2026

2 COOKE v. USPS

Ms. Cooke appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging, among other things, retaliation based on a prior Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) discrimination complaint. The Board rejected Ms. Cooke’s arguments and affirmed her removal. In her filings before this court, Ms. Cooke indicates that she seeks judicial re- view of her discrimination claim.

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, 5 U.S.C. § 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 425–26, 437 (2017). Here, Ms. Cooke argues her re- moval was based, at least in part, on retaliation for filing a prior EEO discrimination complaint, such that we do not have jurisdiction. See Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “affirm- ative defenses of reprisal for prior EEO activity” consti- tutes covered discrimination). We agree with USPS and Ms. Cooke that transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, where the employment action appears to have occurred, is appropriate under the circum- stances, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, and that the district court would be in a better position to assess any timeliness is- sues.

Accordingly, Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2026

COOKE v. USPS 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

June 29, 2026 Date