Darin A. Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DARIN A. JONES,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1197
______________________
Decided: April 21, 2026
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-315I-12-0847-R-1.
______________________
D ARIN A. J ONES , Potomac, MD, pro se.
D EANNA SCHABACKER , Office of the General Counsel,
United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON J ANE
BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1197 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

JONES v. MSPB 2
Darin A. Jones petitions for review of a final order of
the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his request to
reopen his 2012 appeal from his termination as an em-
ployee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On March
13, 2026, we directed Mr. Jones and the Board to file sup-
plemental briefs addressing whether this court lacks juris-
diction over Mr. Jones’s appeal to us in light of the bar on
our jurisdiction in mixed cases, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7702,
7703(b)(1)(A), (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 582 U.S. 420, 431–32 (2017), and also whether, if
jurisdiction is lacking, we should dismiss Mr. Jones’s ap-
peal to us for want of jurisdiction or should transfer the
matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Order, ECF No. 44 (Mar.
13, 2026). Mr. Jones, then the Board, each filed a brief in
response.
As the parties now agree, for reasons we explained in
our March 13, 2026 Order, at 4–6, Mr. Jones’s termination
appeal to the Board was a mixed case because it included
certain civil-rights claims specified in 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1).
See, e.g., Jones Supplemental Brief, ECF No. 47, at 6 (Apr.
3, 2026) (“Jones’s case has always been a mixed-case ap-
peal.” (capitalization removed)); Board Supplemental
Brief, ECF No. 49, at 2 (Apr. 16, 2026) (“[The Board] agrees
with the Court that Mr. Jones’s termination appeal, which
was finally decided by the Board in 2013, was a mixed
case.”). As a result, a Board decision in the termination
appeal is outside our jurisdiction to review unless Mr.
Jones were to abandon any further pursuit of the claims
that defeat our jurisdiction. March 13, 2026 Order, at 4–6.
In his supplemental brief, Mr. Jones declines to abandon
further pursuit of his civil-rights claims. Jones Supple-
mental Brief, at 7. The jurisdictional bar, we conclude, ap-
plies here.
Mr. Jones suggests, see id. at 6, that we are free to dis-
regard the bar on our jurisdiction because in 2015, after the
Board rejected his termination appeal in 2013, we summar-
ily affirmed the Board’s decision, rather than dismissing
Case: 25-1197 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

JONES v. MSPB 3
his appeal of the Board’s decision. Jones v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 597 F. App’x 1083, No. 2014-3050 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (Rule 36 summary affirmance), reh’g denied,
No. 2014-3050 ECF No. 35 (April 8, 2015), cert. denied, 577
U.S. 1067 (2016).1 The 2015 affirmance, however, pre-
dated the Supreme Court’s 2017 Perry decision, which re-
jected our pre-Perry view of the mixed-case bar as too nar-
row. See Perry, 582 U.S. at 429, 434 n.8. At least for that
reason, and because the jurisdictional issue understanda-
bly was not even raised to us at the time, we must follow
Perry.
The Board, for its part, makes only one argument in
support of our jurisdiction here. The Board accepts that its
denial of reopening of the termination appeal is a “final or-
der or final decision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), unlike the
Board Clerk’s administrative denial of reopening at issue
in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 675 F. App’x
972, 973–74 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which we held was outside
our jurisdiction to review. Instead, the Board suggests that
the Board’s denial here is not a decision in the termination-
appeal mixed case. Board Supplemental Brief, at 3–5. The
Board, however, has offered no meaningful analysis, much
less a persuasive reason, to justify the suggested separa-
tion of the reopening motion from the case Mr. Jones seeks
to reopen so as to avoid the mixed-case bar. See id. We
therefore conclude that we lack jurisdiction.
1 The parties did not raise the issue of the applica-
bility of the mixed-case jurisdictional bar in their briefs in
Fed. Cir. No. 2014-3050. See Jones Opening Brief,
No. 2014-3050 ECF No. 7 (Feb. 20, 2014); Intervenor Dep’t
of Justice Brief, No. 2014-3050 ECF No. 17 (Apr. 16, 2014);
Board Response Brief, No. 2014-3050 ECF No. 18 (Apr. 18,
2014); Jones Reply Brief, No. 2014-3050 ECF No. 23 (Apr.
28, 2014).
Case: 25-1197 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

JONES v. MSPB 4
Mr. Jones suggests (Jones Supplemental Brief, at 7–8)
that, if we decide that we lack jurisdiction, we should trans-
fer the matter to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, the forum where Mr. Jones originally
(but prematurely) challenged his termination, see Jones
v. United States Department of Justice, No. 1:13-8, 111 F.
Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2015), aff’d, Jones v. United States De-
partment of Justice, No. 15-5246, 2017 WL 3895064 (D.C.
Cir. July 14, 2017). The Board does not address the possi-
bility of transfer at all. In these circumstances, we transfer
the present appeal to the district court for the District of
Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
TRANSFERRED
Case: 25-1197 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 4 of 4 --