Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30904/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30904-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-30904

Summary Calendar

NORMAN JAMES GALLIEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

(01-CV-373)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norman Gallien appeals from the district court’s grant of

 Case: 03-30904 Document: 0051623878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2004
No. 03-30904

-2-

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

(1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 262 (1983); Feres v. United

States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950); Holdiness v. Stroud, 808 F.2d 417 (5th

Cir. 1987); Gonzalez v. Department of the Army, 718 F.2d 926 (9th

Cir. 1983).

 Case: 03-30904 Document: 0051623878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2004
No. 03-30904

-3-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30904 Document: 0051623878 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2004