Natasha Pleasant v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NATASHA PLEASANT,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-2048
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-25-0088-I-1.
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
On September 23, 2025, this court ordered the parties
to address whether this case belongs in federal district
court. Natasha Pleasant, through counsel, says no. The
Merit Systems Protection Board says yes, and so do we.
Ms. Pleasant appealed her removal to the Board, alleg-
ing, in part, discrimination based on disability. The Board,
in its final decision, dismissed her appeal, and she then
filed this petition seeking our review. In her Statement
Concerning Discrimination filed with this court, Ms.
Case: 25-2048 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

PLEASANT v. MSPB 2
Pleasant indicated that she does not wish to abandon her
discrimination claim(s).
We now transfer. Federal district courts, not this
court, have jurisdiction over mixed cases—“[c]ases of dis-
crimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C.] § 7702,”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an ac-
tion 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). Here, Ms.
Pleasant appealed her removal to the Board, alleged it was
based, at least in part, on covered discrimination, and con-
tinues to seek review of her discrimination claim(s). Thus,
we lack jurisdiction. We conclude that transfer to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, where the personnel action appears to have oc-
curred, is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.1
Accordingly,
1 In her response, Ms. Pleasant asserts that this
court has jurisdiction because she seeks “to argue the scope
of the Board’s authority to hear a mixed case appeal.” ECF
No. 13 at 1. The Supreme Court has twice rejected that
proposition. Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012)
(“[W]hether the MSPB decided her case on procedural
grounds or instead on the merits,” “[a] federal employee
who claims that an action appealable to the MSPB violates
a[ covered] antidiscrimination statute . . . should seek judi-
cial review in district court, not in the Federal Circuit.”);
Perry, 582 U.S. at 432–33 (rejecting “a distinction between
MSPB merits and procedural decisions, on the one hand,
and the Board’s jurisdictional rulings, on the other” for pur-
poses of mixed case jurisdiction). In the alternative,
Ms. Pleasant requests transfer to the EEOC, but she has
not identified any authority for granting such relief.
Case: 25-2048 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

PLEASANT v. MSPB 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
November 24, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-2048 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 3 of 3 --