Yolanda Bell, Petitioner v. United States Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Respondent (2016)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the motion for appointment of counsel; the motion for reasonable accommodations; the motion to dismiss, and the opposition thereto, which includes a request that the case be transferred to the district court; the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion to compel production of a Vaughn index, it is

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that this case, including the motions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), for counsel, for reasonable accommodations, and to compel, be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A party may seek initial review in an appellate court “only when a direct review statute specifically gives the court of appeals subject-matter jurisdiction to directly review agency action.” Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Jurisdiction over petitioner's Privacy Act claims lies in the district court in the first instance. See 5 U.S.C. 522a(g)(1). Because petitioner filed, but subsequently withdrew, a substantially similar claim in district court, we find that transfer to the district court is in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary reversal be dismissed as moot.

The Clerk is directed to transmit the original file, including a certified copy of this order and the motions to proceed IFP, for counsel, for reasonable accommodations, and to compel, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.

Per Curiam