Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01973/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01973-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.V.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EUGENE H. ROBINSON, JR., 

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. 

Marine Corps. (In His 

Capacity As Military Judge); 

and DAVID A. MARTINEZ, 

Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps. 

(As Indispensable Party),

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01973-JAM-CKD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This case arises from a criminal matter in military court in 

Japan. Plaintiff E.V., a civilian, asks this Court to issue a 

mandamus writ that would reverse a discovery order involving 

Plaintiff’s mental health records in that court-martial 

proceeding. ECF No. 5. Defendants Lieutenant (“Lt.”) Colonel 

Eugene H. Robinson and Sergeant (“Sgt.”) David A. Martinez move 

to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 

ECF No. 11.

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for October 4, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01973-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The court-martial proceeding in Japan commenced after 

Plaintiff E.V. alleged that Defendant Sgt. Martinez sexually 

assaulted her. Compl., ECF No. 4, at 2-5. Defendant Lt.

Robinson is presiding over the pending court-martial. Id. ¶ 6. 

During discovery, Defendant Sgt. Martinez requested Plaintiff 

E.V.’s mental health records, but E.V. invoked patientpsychotherapist privilege under Military Rule of Evidence 513 

(“MRE 513”). Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 16. Defendant Lt. Robinson granted 

Defendant Sgt. Martinez’s request. Id. ¶¶ 14-16.

Plaintiff E.V. has challenged Defendant Lt. Robinson’s 

discovery order throughout the military court system, arguing 

that the judiciary should prevent him from disclosing her 

privileged psychotherapist records since he misapplied MRE 513. 

Id. ¶¶ 9-13, 17-21. Initially, she appealed to the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (“NMCCA”), asking that the court 

issue a mandamus writ. Id. ¶ 17. The NMCCA denied her request. 

Id. ¶ 18. Then E.V. appealed to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”). Id. ¶ 19. It ruled that 

it lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief. Id. ¶ 20. E.V. 

now seeks relief from an Article III court. Id. ¶ 4. She filed 

first in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, but that court transferred venue to this Court. ECF 

No. 14. Defendants move to dismiss this case on, inter alia,

sovereign immunity grounds. ECF No. 31.

II. OPINION

A. Sovereign Immunity

“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued 

Case 2:16-cv-01973-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

without its consent and that the existence of such consent is a 

prerequisite for jurisdiction.” Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 

1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citation and quotation 

marks omitted). Waiver “must be unequivocally expressed”; it 

cannot be implied. See id. (internal citation omitted). 

Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor 28 U.S.C. § 1361 waives sovereign 

immunity. See Pit River Home and Agric. Coop. Ass’n v. United 

States, 30 F.3d 1088, 1097-98 n.5 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Sections 

1331 and 1361 do not waive the sovereign immunity of the United 

States.”); Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(§ 1331 not a waiver); Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346, 1352 n.9 

(9th Cir. 1976) (§ 1361 not a waiver). If the United States has 

not consented, then the court must dismiss the suit. See

Gilbert, 756 F.2d at 1458 (internal citation omitted). 

B. Analysis

This Court must dismiss this case because the United States 

has not waived its sovereign immunity. Plaintiff E.V. sued 

Defendant Lt. Robinson in his official capacity, which 

constitutes a suit against the United States. See Gilbert, 756 

F.2d at 1458 (“a suit against [federal] employees in their 

official capacity is essentially a suit against the United 

States”). See also Compl. at 1. Plaintiff E.V. invoked this 

Court’s §§ 1331 and 1361 jurisdiction, but neither statute 

waives sovereign immunity. See Pit River Home and Agric. Coop. 

Ass’n, 30 F.3d at 1097-98 n.5. See also Compl. ¶ 7. And, 

contrary to Plaintiff E.V.’s argument that § 1361 petitions 

raise no sovereign immunity issues, the Ninth Circuit emphasizes 

that sovereign immunity is “an additional impediment” to 

Case 2:16-cv-01973-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

“allegation[s] of mandamus jurisdiction.” Smith, 534 F.2d at 

1352 n.9. See also Surreply, ECF No. 35, at 2. Plaintiff 

E.V.’s Hail-Mary attempt to invoke § 806b as a statutory waiver 

also fails: that law grants mandamus jurisdiction only to “the 

Court of Criminal Appeals.” See 10 U.S.C.A. § 806b(e)(1) (West 

2015) (“If the victim of an offense under this chapter believes 

that a ... court-martial ruling violates the rights of the 

victim afforded by [MRE 513], the victim may petition the Court 

of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus to require 

the...court-martial to comply with the...rule.”). Plaintiff 

also cites no case law supporting her proposition that § 806b

waives sovereign immunity. 

Despite Plaintiff E.V.’s efforts to seek judicial review, 

the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity to 

collaterally review a discovery order in a pending courtmartial. And since sovereign immunity bars this suit, this 

Court need not address the remaining equitable jurisdiction and 

mandamus relief questions. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DENIES with prejudice 

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01973-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 4