Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01898/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01898-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1898

___________

Victor Ziegler, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Gale Norton, Secretary, United States *

Department of the Interior; Richard * [UNPUBLISHED]

Armstrong, BIA, Aberdeen Area *

Supervisory Criminal Investigator; Ted *

Qusula, Director of the Bureau of *

Indian Affairs, Office of Law *

Enforcement Service; Walt Hernandez; *

Brent Larocque; Karen Chicharello; *

Kevin Gover, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2006

Filed: February 14, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-1898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2006 Entry ID: 2009561
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South

Dakota. 

2

He has waived his claims against the remaining defendants. See Meyers v.

Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2005). 

-2-

Victor Ziegler, Sr., appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his lawsuit brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA), the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), and the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), against Secretary of the Department of the

Interior Gale Norton (DOI).2

 His claims arose from his nonselection for a criminalinvestigator (CI) position, and a reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’

(Bureau’s) law-enforcement programs. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

affirm. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo

standard of review), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 (2004). We disagree with Ziegler that

the grant of summary judgment was premature, as Ziegler did not seek a continuance

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,

1238 (8th Cir. 1997); and we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

discovery rulings, see Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir. 2005).

The district court correctly determined that Ziegler failed to establish any

trialworthy issues as to whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies by

contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within forty-five days of the

alleged discriminatory event. See Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir.

2005) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is condition precedent to filing ADEA

action in federal court); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (2005) (pre-complaint processing).

Ziegler provided no basis for applying the continuing-violation doctrine, because the

nonselection decision at issue was a discrete event. See Burkett v. Glickman, 327

F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2003). Ziegler also did not qualify for an extension of the

Appellate Case: 05-1898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2006 Entry ID: 2009561
-3-

forty-five-day deadline based on any regulatory provisions, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105

(a)(2) (2005), and the doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel do not help

him, see Dorsey v. Pinnacle Automation Co., 278 F.3d 830, 835-36 (8th Cir. 2002)

(discussing doctrines). As to the APA and VEOA claims, Ziegler presented no

evidence showing a connection between the nonselection decision and the

reorganization, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)

(standing requires, inter alia, causal connection between injury and conduct

complained of; party invoking federal jurisdiction bears burden of establishing

elements for standing); and the indisputable evidence showed the decision to select

someone other than Ziegler for the CI position became effective October 25, 1998,

before the October 31, 1998 effective date of the VEOA, see Lapuh v. Merit Sys. Prot.

Bd., 284 F.3d 1277, 1277-82 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (VEOA did not confer jurisdiction to

adjudicate claims of veterans’-preferences violations allegedly occurring before

effective date of Act).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1898 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2006 Entry ID: 2009561