Full Opinion

Case: 26-2253 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/29/2026 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JOHN TITRE, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent ______________________ 2026-2253 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DE-0752-25-0120-I-1. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before CHEN, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The Department of Agriculture moves unopposed for the court to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and transfer this matter. John Titre appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging his removal and asserting defenses in- cluding discrimination and retaliation for prior equal Case: 26-2253 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/29/2026 2 TITRE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE employment opportunity (“EEO”) activity. The Board af- firmed the removal and rejected the defenses. Mr. Titre seeks judicial review and indicates in his filings before the court that he continues to pursue the discrimination and EEO retaliation claim. ECF No. 8 at 2. 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, Mr. Titre raises both dis- crimination claims and retaliation for EEO activities, 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 “affirmative defenses of reprisal for prior EEO activ- ity” constitute assertions of covered discrimination). We agree that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is ap- propriate. While the Department suggests transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming based solely on Mr. Titre’s address, that is not a basis for venue under the applicable statutory scheme. Rather, it appears the United States District Court for the District of Utah is an appropriate venue where the action could have been brought because that is where the alleged personnel action appears to have occurred. See ECF No. 11 at 8 (de- scribing Mr. Titre’s most recent position “in the Duchesne Roosevelt Ranger District,” which appears to be located in Case: 26-2253 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 10/29/2026 TITRE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3 Utah1); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5, 2000e-16(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT October 29, 2026 Date 1 https://www.fs.usda.gov/r04/ashley/offices/duch- esneroosevelt-ranger-district (listing an address in Utah). 2 This order does not interfere with the district court’s ability to transfer the case as it deems appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).