Rebecca Fuller, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Jerre Kaufman; Gordon Ravenscroft; Robert T. Simon;richard C. Jernigan, Defendants-appellees, 43 F.3d 1479 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 43 F.3d 1479 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted Dec. 5, 1994. *Decided Dec. 13, 1994

Before: NOONAN, O'SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Rebecca Fuller appeals the district court's dismissal of her claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de novo a district court's conclusion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Carpenter v. Department of Transp., 13 F.3d 313, 314 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

Fuller alleges that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by, among other things, denying her free speech rights. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that it was barred by intragovernmental immunity pursuant to Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 293 (1983). In Chappell, the Supreme Court held that enlisted military personnel may not maintain suits to recover damages from a superior officer for alleged constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, the Court expressly left open the question of whether the appellant's statutory claim was judicially cognizable. Id. at 305 n. 3. This court has done the same. Christoffersen v. Washington State Air Nat'l Guard, 855 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1098 (1989).

In this case we do not reach the cognizability issue because Fuller's section 1983 claim must be rejected for failure to allege exhaustion of intraservice remedies. Miller v. Newbauer, 862 F.2d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.