Harold Wilborn v. Janet Napolitano

592 F. App'x 571

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 30, 2015
• Docket: 13-55674
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Harold L. Wilborn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), Title VII, and the First and Fifth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.2001) (subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wilborn’s USERRA claim concerning the U.S. Border Patrol’s alleged failure to promote him and his 5-day suspension because it lacked jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 4324 (USERRA claims against the federal government must be presented to Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), with right to appeal to Federal Circuit); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b) (with limited exception, MSPB decisions are ap-pealable only to the Federal Circuit). Contrary to Wilborn’s contention, the district court did not have jurisdiction on the basis that he brought a mixed case.

The district court properly dismissed Wilborn’s Title VII claim because Wilborn failed to comply with the administrative exhaustion requirement. See Kraus v. Presidio Trust Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2009) (explaining Title VII exhaustion requirements for federal employees).

The district court properly dismissed Wilborn’s First and Fifth Amendment claims because the Civil Service Reform Act precludes him from “seeking injunctive relief for his asserted constitutional injury just as it precludes him from bringing a Bivens action for damages.” Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer Wilborn’s action to the Federal Circuit because Wil-born did not file his complaint within 60 days of the MSPB’s decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (a petition to review an MSPB decision must be filed within 60 days of that decision); Hays v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S., 868 F.2d 328, 331 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (standard of review).

We reject Wilborn’s contentions concerning standing and the alleged violation of his right to a jury trial.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.