DocketNumber: 13-35719
Citation Numbers: 611 F. App'x 428
Filed Date: 7/30/2015
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHANDRAMA MISHRA, No. 13-35719 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00561-MJP v. MEMORANDUM* SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted July 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. * 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). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v. United States,529 F.3d 1243
, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Mishra’s action because it is precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). Seeid. at 1247-48
(CSRA limits federal employees challenging “prohibited personnel practices,” defined as any “personnel action” taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States,928 F.2d 829
, 834 (9th Cir. 1991) (broadly construing the definition of “personnel action”). The district court properly denied Mishra’s motion for default judgment because defendants filed a timely response to his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool,782 F.2d 1470
, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 2 13-35719