to hold that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, the court set forth, in detail, the administrative procedures that the CSRA afforded to each of the three plaintiffs. See 73 F.3d at 31-32. The court expressly recognized that, “[i]nstead of pursuing these remedies, the appellants filed an action in district court.” See id. at 32. Nonetheless, the court held that the employees could proceed with their claims in the district court. Mitchum thus stands for the proposition that if jurisdiction exists in the federal courts to hear a federal employee’s constitutional claim for equitable reliéf, the employed is not required to first pursue whatever remedies the CSRA affords before bringing that claim to the district court. See Irizarry, 427 F.3d at 79 n. 4 (<HOLDING>). Elgin did not disturb this aspect of Mitchum,
recognizing that mitchum deviates from those courts that require administrative exhaustion recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia holding that a courts authority to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in actions brought under the apa is limited when neither the statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review