Frank Ford v. Victor Artiga , 657 F. App'x 710 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK GREGORY FORD, No. 14-15050
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02370-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR ARTIGA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank Gregory Ford appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135(1950), his action arising from his deployment in Iraq. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 732 (9th
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2011) (Feres doctrine); Khalsa v. Weinberger, 779 F.2d 1393, 1395-96 (9th
Cir. 1985) (claim involving a military decision), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ford’s constitutional and common law
claims for monetary damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Feres
doctrine because Ford alleges that he was an active duty service member of the
California Army National Guard during the events that formed the basis of his
action, and his claims arose incident to his active military service. See Feres, 340
U.S. at 146 (“[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.”); Jackson, 648 F.3d at 733 (explaining scope and requirements
of Feres doctrine).
The district court properly dismissed Ford’s requests for injunctive and
declaratory relief because Ford’s action challenged non-justiciable military
decisions. See Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (outlining
factors for determining whether judicial review of a challenge to a military
decision is appropriate).
Ford’s requests to remove the United States Attorney’s office from this case,
to appoint special counsel, and to prevent defendants from using taxpayer money
for their defense, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.
2 14-15050
Ford’s request for oral argument, filed on November 3, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15050