WAYNE HAWKES V. MARTA VAN LOAN, No. 14-17300 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAYNE CHRISTIAN HAWKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-17300 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02072-EDL MEMORANDUM* MARTA D. VAN LOAN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted January 18, 2017*** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Wayne Christian Hawkes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that a fellow employee of the United States * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Department of Agriculture slandered him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and a denial of a challenge to certification. McLachlan v. Bell, 261 F.3d 908, 910 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court properly denied Hawkes’s motion to strike the 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) certification because Van Loan was acting within the scope of her employment at the time the alleged slander and libel claims arose. See id. at 912. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Hawkes’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hawkes’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint alleging a Bivens claim because the allegations in Hawkes’s proposed complaint failed to state any federal claim. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 234 (1991) (explaining that whenever the alleged “damage flows from injury caused by the defendant to a plaintiff’s reputation, it may be recoverable under state tort law but it is not recoverable in a Bivens action”); see also Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (leave to amend not required “where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal”); Chodos v. West. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2 14-17300 2002) (setting forth standard of review). Hawkes’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 31, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 14-17300

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.