Richardson v. United States Department of Labor

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-3130
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK W. RICHARDSON, No. 23-3130 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00923-LK Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP); SANDRA E. TYUS, Claims Examiner; TRACY A. JOHNSON, OWCP Chief of Operations; CRAIG DUNN; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE; JONAS MALM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Lauren J. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Frederick W. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing his action alleging that delays by the Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs (“OWCP”) deprived him of his right to procedural due process. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Crowe v. Or. State Bar,

989 F.3d 714, 724 (9th Cir. 2021) (sovereign immunity); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6));

Council of Ins. Agents & Brokers v. Molasky-Aramn, 522 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir.

2008) (standing). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that Richardson lacked standing for

his claims for injunctive relief because Richardson failed to allege facts sufficient

to show a likelihood of future injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

95, 105 (1983) (explaining that a plaintiff’s standing to seek injunctive relief

depends on whether he is likely to suffer future injury from the actions complained

of).

The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s claim for damages

against OWCP because those claims are barred by sovereign immunity. See Balser

v. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining

that the “United States . . . is immune from suit unless it has waived its

immunity”).

2 23-3130 To the extent Richardson sought to bring claims under Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

against OWCP employees in their individual capacities, the district court properly

dismissed these claims because a Bivens remedy is not available. See Egbert v.

Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491-93 (2022) (explaining that recognizing a cause of action

under Bivens is a “disfavored judicial activity” and that the presence of “an

alternative remedial structure” precludes recognizing a Bivens cause of action in a

new context (citations omitted)).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3130