Gallien v. USA ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit April 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30904
Summary Calendar
NORMAN JAMES GALLIEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on behalf of United States Department of
Army, on behalf of United States Department of the Air Force;
HERBERT J. COMEAUX, Individually & in his official capacity; LLOYD
M. BOURQUE, JR., Individually & in his official capacity; LOUISIANA
MILITARY DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
(01-CV-373)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norman Gallien appeals from the district court’s grant of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30904
-2-
summary judgment to defendants United States, et al., on his claim
alleging that his honorable discharge from military duty occurred
for improper, discriminatory reasons. We review the district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standards used in that court. Rogers v. International Marine
Terminals, 87 F. 3d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 1996).
Appellant began his service with the Louisiana National Guard
in 1984. He was separated from service with an honorable discharge
in February, 2000, based on medical reasons. He brought suit
against defendants, his federal and state employers and
supervisors, claiming that his dismissal actually resulted from
discrimination and a “vendetta” against him. The defendants moved
to dismiss the suit on several grounds. The district court
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and did not reach
the other grounds.
We agree with the district court that this suit should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Courts have
long recognized that plaintiffs are restricted from bringing
actions of this kind against their military employers and
superiors. See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669(1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 262 (1983); Feres v. United
States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950); Holdiness v. Stroud, 808 F.2d 417 (5th
Cir. 1987); Gonzalez v. Department of the Army, 718 F.2d 926 (9th
Cir. 1983).
No. 03-30904
-3-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.