Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06424/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melton M. Moran
Appellee
Danny Lee Schultz
Appellant
Linda S. Steward
Appellee

Document Text:

,,,, .. 

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

Unuect S~~ Co~rt of Appeals ,. ~nth C1.rcuit 

MAY 2 ~ 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DANNY LEE SCHULTZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. No. 89-6424 

MELTON M. MORAN, Packing 

Chief; LINDA S. STEWARD, 

Packing Bay Supervisor, 

(D. C. No. CIV-89-1350-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Schultz appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of 

his prose complaint. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6424 Document: 010110036098 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 1 
I 

Mr. Schultz, a 

complaint wherein he 

prisoner of the state of Oklahoma, filed a 

sought damages for an alleged wrongful 

termination from his employment as a packer at Tinker Air Force 

Base. In his complaint, Mr. Schultz set forth two counts. In his 

first count, he alleged he was unlawfully terminated on June 10, 

1987, for insubordinations and that this termination was rescinded 

on July 27, 1987. In his second count, Mr. Schultz alleged that 

he was again wrongfully terminated on June 7, 1988. The apparent 

gravamen of the second count is a letter of inquiry was sent by 

his employer asking why Schultz had been absent from work. The 

letter demanded a response within seven days even though his 

employer allegedly knew that Mr. Schultz was incarcerated awaiting 

trial and that this letter would not reach him. Mr. Schultz 

sought damages of 2.5 million dollars on each count. 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The district court found that Mr. Schultz pursued his 

administrative remedy with respect to his first termination and 

obtained the requested relief. The district court also found that 

Mr. Schultz had not filed an administrative appeal concerning his 

second termination, a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction 

by a federal court. Sampson v. Civiletti, 632 F.2d 860, 862 (10th 

Cir. 1980). Citing Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983), and 

Brothers v. Custis, 886 F.2d 1282 (10th Cir. 1989), the district 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6424 Document: 010110036098 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 2 
I .. 

/ 

court held that Congress intended the civil service laws to 

provide the exclusive remedy for federal employees asserting 

wrongful termination claims and thus determined it did not have 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. Schultz appeals this decision prose, asserting that he 

was denied his day in court and is well able to prove that he was 

twice wrongfully terminated. He quotes law stating that an 

employer cannot justify a discharge that is arbitrary, capricious 

and lacking factual foundation. Concerning the lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, Mr. Schultz simply states that the district 

court's opinion "is not solid." He also argues that he is 

untrained in the law and asks that this court appoint counsel to 

represent him. However, the district court looked solely to the 

allegations of Mr. Schultz' complaint in making its determination 

that it lacked jurisdiction and this court discerns no 

jurisdictional basis from Mr. Schultz' allegations. 

Mr. Schultz has cited no law or authority to us that would 

even suggest the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. 

We thus conclude that this appeal is legally frivolous within the 

meaning of 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) and therefore dismiss the appeal. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6424 Document: 010110036098 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 3