Case ID: f-appx_95/html/0061-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norman James GALLIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, United States of America, on behalf of United States Department of Army, on behalf of United States Department of the Air Force; Herbert J. Comeaux, Individually & in his official capacity; Lloyd M. Bourque, Jr., Individually & in his official capacity; Louisiana Military Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-30904.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided: April 16, 2004.
    
      Harold D. Register, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Thomas Burton Thompson, Assistant US Attorney, Lafayette, LA, John F. DeRosier, Law Office of John F. DeRosier, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Norman Gallien appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants United States, et al., on his claim alleging that his honorable discharge from military duty occurred for improper, discriminatory reasons. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards used in that court. Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, 87 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.1996).

Appellant began his service with the Louisiana National Guard in 1984. He was separated from service with an honorable discharge in February, 2000, based on medical reasons. He brought suit against defendants, his federal and state employers and supervisors, claiming that his dismissal actually resulted from discrimination and a “vendetta” against him. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit on several grounds. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and did not reach the other grounds.

We agree with the district court that this suit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Courts have long recognized that plaintiffs are restricted from bringing actions of this kind against their military employers and superiors. See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983); Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); Holdiness v. Stroud, 808 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1987); Gonzalez v. Department of the Army, 718 F.2d 926 (9th Cir.1983).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.