Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01986/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Hilda Solis has been appointed to serve as Secretary of Labor and is substituted

as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

2

Paul M. Igasaki has been appointed to serve as Chair of the Department of

Labor Administrative Review Board and is substituted as respondent pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1986

___________

James F. Newport, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States Department of Labor; *

Hilda Solis,1

 Secretary of Labor; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Paul M. Igasaki,2

 ARB Chair; *

Honorable Daniel J. Solomon, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 26, 2010

 Filed: March 16, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-1986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644774
3

The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

James Newport previously filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) a 42

U.S.C. § 5851 whistleblower complaint, which—on the recommendation of an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)—was dismissed by the DOL Administrative Review

Board as a sanction for Newport’s improper conduct. Newport then brought this

mandamus action in the district court,3

 seeking to have the ALJ recused and his

administrative action reinstated. The district court dismissed the mandamus action

upon concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and Newport now appeals that

dismissal.

After careful de novo review, see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797,

799 (8th Cir. 2006), we agree with the district court’s decision, see 42 U.S.C.

§ 5851(c)(1)-(2) (orders under § 5851(b) may be appealed to United States court of

appeals for circuit in which violation allegedly occurred; where such review of order

could have been obtained, order “shall not be subject to judicial review in any criminal

or other civil proceeding”); cf. Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir.

1992) (in Medicare context, agreeing with district court that general federal subject

matter jurisdiction was precluded where administrative remedies had not been

exhausted); Hatcher v. Heckler, 772 F.2d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he writ of

mandamus ‘is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all

other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary

duty.’” (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984))).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644774