Rhonda Owens Caracciolo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 C URIAM.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

CARACCIOLO v. FDIC 2
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 O RDERED 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.
July 23, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1486 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 2 --