CHATMAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 20-55611

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Chatman's § 1983 action and related claims because the defendants were federal rather than state actors, the Veterans' Judicial Review Act precluded jurisdiction over benefits claims, and the Feres doctrine barred service-related tort claims.

Philip Roberts Chatman, Jr. appealed a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights lawsuit against the Navy arising from his military service. Chatman brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations, along with tort and benefits-denial claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal on multiple independent grounds: the defendants were federal actors rather than state actors, placing them outside § 1983's scope; the Veterans' Judicial Review Act stripped the district court of jurisdiction over benefits-related claims; and the Feres doctrine barred tort claims connected to service-related injuries. The court granted Chatman's motion to proceed as an indigent litigant but declined to consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

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

Key issues

Whether federal military officials can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (state action requirement)
Whether district courts have jurisdiction over veterans' benefits denial claims
Whether the Feres doctrine bars tort claims arising from military service

Procedural posture

Chatman appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 and tort claims related to his military service.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Chatmans motion for in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 2) is granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect this status. The Clerk will file the Opening Brief at Docket Entry No. 3.

Philip Roberts Chatman, Jr. appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of his military service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under the Feres doctrine); Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Chatmans § 1983 claims because defendants are not state actors. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must ․ show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”); Morse v. N. Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (federal government actors cannot be liable under § 1983).

The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”) Chatmans claims alleging a denial of benefits and negligence. See Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (the VJRA precludes district court jurisdiction over claims relating to or affecting the provision of benefits to veterans).

To the extent that Chatmans tort claims are related to his military service, the district court properly dismissed these claims as barred by the Feres doctrine because Chatmans alleged injuries arose in the course of activity incident to military service. See United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 686-88, 107 S.Ct. 2063, 95 L.Ed.2d 648 (1987) (“[T]he Feres doctrine has been applied to consistently bar all suits on behalf of service members against the Government based upon service-related injuries.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions, other than the motion for in forma pauperis status, are denied.

AFFIRMED.