Dawana Cooke v. United States Postal Service

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAWANA COOKE,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent
______________________
2026-1576
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-22-0282-I-2.
______________________
Before P ROST , MAYER , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to this court’s April 24, 2026, show-cause
order, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) urges dis-
missal or transfer. Dawana Cooke requests transfer if this
court lacks jurisdiction.1 We transfer.
1 We grant Ms. Cooke’s request to accept her late re-
sponse.
Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

COOKE v. USPS 2
Ms. Cooke appealed her removal to the Merit Systems
Protection Board, alleging, among other things, retaliation
based on a prior Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”)
discrimination complaint. The Board rejected Ms. Cooke’s
arguments and affirmed her removal. In her filings before
this court, Ms. Cooke indicates that she seeks judicial re-
view of her discrimination claim.
Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction
over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of
[5 U.S.C.] § 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an
allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an al-
legation that a basis for the action was covered discrimina-
tion, 5 U.S.C. § 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S.
420, 425–26, 437 (2017). Here, Ms. Cooke argues her re-
moval was based, at least in part, on retaliation for filing a
prior EEO discrimination complaint, such that we do not
have jurisdiction. See Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev.,
670 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “affirm-
ative defenses of reprisal for prior EEO activity” consti-
tutes covered discrimination). We agree with USPS and
Ms. Cooke that transfer to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, where the employment action
appears to have occurred, is appropriate under the circum-
stances, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, and that the district court
would be in a better position to assess any timeliness is-
sues.
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

COOKE v. USPS 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
June 29, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1576 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 3 of 3 --