Case: 23-1309 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BLAKE YOUNG,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2023-1309
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in Nos. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1, NY-752S-17-0024-B-1.
______________________
Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM
ORDER
Blake Young seeks review of two related Merit System
Protection Board decisions—Young v. United States Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1,
2022 WL
3696854 (Aug. 26, 2022) (“I-1 matter”) and Young v. United
States Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. NY-752S-17-0024-
Case: 23-1309 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2023
2 YOUNG v. MSPB
B-1,
2022 WL 17587692 (Dec. 9, 2022) (“B-1 matter”)—dis-
missing his appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
In the I-1 matter, Mr. Young filed an appeal challeng-
ing a 2016 agency action placing him in an “emergency off-
duty status without pay” only five days after the agency
action. See SAppx. 1 16. Mr. Young “disputed the agency’s
reasons for placing him in such status and raised claims of
harmful procedural error and discrimination.”
Id. 2 The
administrative judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction be-
cause the Board only has jurisdiction over suspensions that
are more than fourteen days. On August 26, 2022, the
Board issued its final decision in the I-1 matter affirming
dismissal. However, the Board noted “appellant submit-
ted . . . pay stubs” with accruals of leave without pay that
the “administrative judge and the agency did not address.”
SAppx. 24. As such, the Board found “[Mr. Young’s] alle-
gations, when viewed in light of the aforementioned evi-
dence, constitute a claim that, since the time that he filed
the instant appeal, he might have been suspended for more
than 14 days,” which would establish an appealable action
to the Board. SAppx. 25. Therefore, the Board forwarded
the I-1 matter to the New York Field Office for docketing
as a new appeal—the B-1 matter—to adjudicate
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix that
the respondent filed concurrently with its informal brief.
2 The Port Chester Postmaster placed Mr. Young in
emergency off-duty status without pay following
Mr. Young’s “outburst” in connection with a car accident
and a required medical exam. See SAppx. 16, 45–46. From
the record, it appears that when the Postmaster questioned
Mr. Young, he “yell[ed]” that he should not be singled out
to take the medical exam, claimed that white carriers did
not have to take the exam and the requirement was im-
posed to “put[] down the black man,” and refused to take
the exam. SAppx. 128, 132; see also SAppx. 53–55.
Case: 23-1309 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2023
YOUNG v. MSPB 3
Mr. Young’s claim.
Id. The administrative judge issued a
decision on December 9, 2022, dismissing the B-1 matter.
This court received Mr. Young’s appeal of both the I-1 and
B-1 matters on December 12, 2022.
Because Mr. Young asserted that he did not wish to
abandon his discrimination claim on judicial review, see
ECF No. 3 4; ECF No. 7 at 4, 6, this court directed the par-
ties to show cause why these cases should not be trans-
ferred. ECF No. 16 at 2–3. The parties’ responses were
included in their respective informal responsive briefing.
ECF Nos. 30 (Intervenor Response Brief), 32 (Respondent
Response Brief).
Having now considered the briefs, we transfer the ap-
peals of the I-1 matter and B-1 matter to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York be-
cause they are “mixed case[s]” that we lack jurisdiction
over. See Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
582 U.S. 420, 431–
32 (2017).
The related I-1 matter and B-1 matter are mixed cases
because, in each filed complaint, Mr. Young “complained of
personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB”—
here, a suspension for more than 14 days—and “alleged
that the personnel action was based on discrimination.”
Perry, 582 U.S. at 432 (quotations and alterations omit-
ted); see SAppx. 2, 45–46, 99–110; ECF No. 4; ECF No. 7
at 4, 6. “Judicial review of such a case lies in district court.”
Perry, 582 U.S. at 432. Therefore, we find it appropriate to
transfer under
28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Southern District of
New York, where the employment action occurred.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
3 “ECF No.” refers to the electronic filing system’s
docket number assigned to a filing at the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
Case: 23-1309 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 12/13/2023
4 YOUNG v. MSPB
The appeal of MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-17-0024-I-1
and the appeal of MSPB Docket No. NY-752S-17-0024-B-1
are transferred. The petition for review and all the filings
are transmitted to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 1631.
FOR THE COURT
December 13, 2023
Date
