Chandrama Mishra v. Samuel S. Startton Va Medical

Ninth Circuit

Chandrama Mishra v. Samuel S. Startton Va Medical

611 F. App'x 428

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 30, 2015·No. 13-35719·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v. United States, 529 F.3d 1243, 1245 n. 2 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mishra’s action because it is precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See id. at 1247-48 (CSRA limits federal employees challenging “prohibited personnel practices,” defined as any “personnel action” taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.1991) (broadly construing the definition of “personnel action”).

The district court properly denied Mish-ra’s motion for default judgment because defendants filed a timely response to his *429 complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v. United States, 529 F.3d 1243, 1245 n. 2 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mishra’s action because it is precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See id. at 1247-48 (CSRA limits federal employees challenging “prohibited personnel practices,” defined as any “personnel action” taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.1991) (broadly construing the definition of “personnel action”).

The district court properly denied Mish-ra’s motion for default judgment because defendants filed a timely response to his *429 complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Chandrama Mishra v. Samuel S. Startton Va Medical, 611 F. App'x 428 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

611 F. App'x 428 (Chandrama Mishra v. Samuel S. Startton Va Medical) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related