LAW.coLAW.co

SWANSON v. UNITED STATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-29No. No. 20-35126

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissal because Swanson's injuries occurred incident to military service and therefore fall within the jurisdictional bar established by the Feres doctrine.

Michael Ray Swanson appealed a district court's summary judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit stemming from injuries he sustained while stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and upheld the dismissal, finding that the lower court properly applied the Feres doctrine, which bars service members from recovering damages under the FTCA when their injuries arise from military service activities. Swanson's arguments that the district court exhibited bias were rejected as meritless, and his motion to expedite the appeal was denied.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Application of the Feres doctrine to FTCA claims by active service members
  • Whether injuries sustained during military service are barred from tort recovery
  • Proper characterization of a Feres-based dismissal as a jurisdictional matter

Procedural posture

Swanson appealed pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his FTCA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Ray Swanson appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action arising from his time at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

The grant of summary judgment, construed as a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, was proper because Swansons injuries were sustained incident to military service. See Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950) (“[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”); Monaco v. United States, 661 F.2d 129, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1981) (negligence claims barred by the Feres doctrine because the alleged negligence, exposure to radiation, occurred while plaintiff was on active duty); see also Jackson v. United States, 110 F.3d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A motion to dismiss pursuant to the Feres doctrine, even if raised after the answer to the complaint, should be treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) rather than as a motion for summary judgment.”).

We reject as without merit Swansons contentions that the district court was biased.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Swansons motion to expedite the case (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.

AFFIRMED.