CHANDRAMA MISHRA V. SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL, No. 13-35719 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUL 30 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHANDRAMA MISHRA, No. 13-35719 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No.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”). See id. 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

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.