eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-08

Edwin Parson v. Usaf ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN F. PARSON,                                No.    18-35995
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00002-TMB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before:      SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Edwin F. Parson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
We review de novo a dismissal under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v.
Carter,
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We may affirm on any ground
*
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).
supported by the record. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
    838 F.3d 958
    , 962 (9th Cir. 2016).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Parson’s claims alleging violation of
the Posse Comitatus Act because Parson failed to establish that the United States
had waived sovereign immunity for such claims. See Reed v. U.S. Dep’t of the
Interior,
    231 F.3d 501
    , 504 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The United States can be sued only to
the extent that it has waived sovereign immunity.”); Holloman v. Watt,
    708 F.2d 1399
    , 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The party who sues the United States bears the
burden of pointing to . . . an unequivocal waiver of immunity.”).
Dismissal of Parson’s claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971) against defendants United
States Air Force, Eielson AFB Security Forces, and Dobbins was proper because
Parson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,
    556 U.S. 662
    , 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to
Bivens . . . a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through
the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); FDIC v.
Meyer,
    510 U.S. 471
     (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign
immunity for constitutional torts; declining to extend Bivens liability to agencies of
the federal government); Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual
2
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
3