Caracciolo v. Fdic

Case: 26-1486 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

RHONDA OWENS CARACCIOLO,

Petitioner v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent ______________________

2026-1486 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0432-22-0466-B-1.

______________________

Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) re- sponds to the court’s April 15, 2026 show cause order, urg- ing dismissal or transfer to district court. Rhonda Owens Caracciolo has not responded.

Ms. Caracciolo appealed to the Merit Systems Protec- tion Board, arguing that her removal by the FDIC was the result of discrimination based on race, age, and/or prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. The Board ultimately rejected Ms. Caracciolo’s discrimination claims Case: 26-1486 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026 2 CARACCIOLO v. FDIC and affirmed the agency’s action. Ms. Caracciolo seeks ju- dicial review, and her filings before this court indicate that she does not wish to abandon her discrimination claims. See ECF No. 6 at 1–3.

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, § 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 re- taliation for prior EEO activity generally “falls outside [of this court’s] jurisdictional reach”). Because Ms. Caracciolo asserted discrimination claims before the Board and wishes to continue to pursue those claims on judicial re- view, we agree with the FDIC that transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Car- olina, where the employment action appears to have oc- curred, is appropriate. 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 North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT July 23, 2026

Date