Charles Heckman v. Dirk Kempthorne , 540 F. App'x 800 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 04 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CHARLES WILLIAM HECKMAN, Ph.                     No. 11-35414
    D., Dr Sci,
    D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05239-RBL
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM **
    SALLY JEWELL *, Secretary, Department
    of the Interior; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 24, 2013 ***
    Before:         RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Charles William Heckman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    *
    Sally Jewell has been substituted for her predecessor, Dirk
    Kempthorne, as Secretary of the Interior under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    judgement in his employment action alleging violations of the Veterans
    Employment Opportunities Act (“VEOA”), the Uniformed Services Employment
    and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), the Whisteblower Protection Act
    (“WPA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Whitman v. Mineta, 
    541 F.3d 929
    , 931 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Heckman’s ADEA
    claims concerning the Department of the Interior’s alleged failure to hire him for
    numerous positions between 2003 and 2007 because Heckman failed to raise a
    genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his administrative
    remedies. See 
    id. at 932
     (discussing administrative exhaustion requirements for
    federal employment under the ADEA).
    Heckman failed to show that the district court had jurisdiction over his
    VEOA, USERRA, and WPA claims concerning the Department of the Interior’s
    alleged failure to hire him for numerous positions between 2003 and 2007. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 1214
     (WPA claims must be presented to Merit Systems Protection Board
    (“MSPB”)); 5 U.S.C. §§ 3330a-3330b (VEOA claims must be presented to MSPB,
    but may then proceed in district court under limited circumstances); 
    38 U.S.C. § 4324
     (USERRA claims against the federal government must be presented to
    2                                      11-35414
    MSPB, with right to appeal to Federal Circuit); see also 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b) (MSPB
    decisions are generally appealable only to the Federal Circuit); Allstate Ins. Co. v.
    Hughes, 
    358 F.3d 1089
    , 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We cannot consider the merits of
    the appeal before assuring ourselves that the district court had jurisdiction.”
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sumner, 
    226 F.3d 1005
    , 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) (burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party
    asserting that a cause is properly before the court). Contrary to Heckman’s
    contention, he failed to show that the district court had jurisdiction as a “mixed
    case.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 
    133 S. Ct. 596
    , 601 & n.1 (2012) (defining “mixed
    case”). Accordingly, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the
    portion of its decision regarding these claims, and to dismiss these claims for lack
    of jurisdiction.
    Heckman’s contentions regarding discovery are unpersuasive. See Margolis
    v. Ryan, 
    140 F.3d 850
    , 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that in making a motion for
    further discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the movant must identify what
    information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment).
    We do not consider Heckman’s claims arising from his termination by the
    Department of Agriculture, which the district court determined were barred by the
    doctrine of res judicata, because Heckman has explicitly disclaimed that they are
    3                                      11-35414
    part of this appeal.
    Heckman’s motion to strike and for sanctions is denied.
    Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    4                      11-35414
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-35414

Citation Numbers: 540 F. App'x 800

Judges: Rawlinson, Smith, Christen

Filed Date: 10/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024