FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16548 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 76 -C V -J T C -3 C H A R L E S A . P I N S O N , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D O N A L D R U M S F E L D , S e c r e ta ry o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

D e f e n s e , F R A N C I S J . H A R V E Y , S e c r e ta ry o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

th e A rm y , B I L L R . W A G O N E R , J E R R Y P O R T E R , C H A R L I E L . C O RN E T T , e t a l., D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 18, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C harl es A . P i nson , Jr . , (“ P i nson ”) , proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct court ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s s ui tal l egi ng di sc ri m i nat i on and o ther c on st i tut i on al v io lati o n s. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in fin d in g th at P in so n ’s c l a i ms o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n u n d e rTi t l e V I I o f th e Ci v i l Ri g h t s A c to f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U . S. C. § 2000e , e ts e q. ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) , w e r e f i l e d i n the i m pr ope rve nue a nd tha tthe i nt er es t s of j ust i ce di d n otw arranta transfe r t o ano ther di stri ct . T he di stri ctcourt a l s o di d note rri n f

i ndi ng tha tP i ns on’ s c l a i m s of c i vi l r i ght s vi ol a t i ons unde r42 U . S . C . § 1 98 5 and const i tut i on al cl ai m s r egar di ng hi s f eder al em pl oym entw er e pr e c l ude d a nd tha tP i ns on f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe c ourtha d pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on o v e rth e in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts n a m e d in h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im s . W e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 1 9 J u ly 2 0 0 4 , P in s o n f ile d ap r o s e c o m p la in t, n a m in g f o u rd e f e n d a n ts : ( 1) D ona l d R um s f

e l d, S e c r e t a ry of

the D e pa rtm e ntof

D e f e ns e ( “ D O D ” ) ; ( 2) W i l l i a m C ohe n, f

orm e rS e c r e t a ry of

the D O D ; ( 3) L oui s C a l de r a , S e c r e t a ry of the D e pa rtm e ntof

the A rm y ( “ D A ” ) ; a nd ( 4) L e s l i e B r ow nl e e , a c t i ng S e c r e t a ry of the D A . T he com pl ai ntw as fi l ed on a “ T i t l e V II C om pl ai nt ” f orm bu ta handw ri tt en no t e a tthe t op of the fi rs tpage i nd i ca t es thati tw as “ no tpri m ar i l y aT i t l e V II ca se ” b u t w a s p r im a r ily f

ile d to a d d r e s s v io la tio n s o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 , a n d th e F ir s t,3

F ou rth, F i fth, and F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s t o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . R 1-3 a t 1 . P in s o n s ta te d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h im b e c au s e o f h is r a c e , r e l i gi on, ge nde r , a nd hi s m i xe d- r a c e m a rr i a ge by f a i l i ng t o pr om ot e hi m a nd t e rm i na t i ng hi s e m pl oy m e nt . I d. a t2. H e di d nota l l e ge a ny f a c t s r e ga r di ng the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e d e f e n d a n ts o rth a t th e y w e r e G e o r g ia r e s i de nt s . S i m ul t a ne ous l y w i th hi s c om pl a i nt , P i ns on f i l e d a n “ a m e ndm e nt ” a nd a doc um e nte nt i t l e d “ I ni t i a l D i s c l os ur e ” w i th appe ndi x; i n both the a m e ndm e nta nd the di s c l os ur e , he i nc orpor a t e d a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s . I d. a t3; R 1- 4. I n the am endm ent , he cl ai m ed thathe w as un l aw ful l y di sm i ss ed fr om em pl oym entbase d on the pr e t e xtua l r e a s on tha the w a s unabl e t o hol d as e c ur i ty c l e a r a nc e . R 1- 3, A m endm entat1. H e a ss ert ed thatvari ou s m i l i t ary per sonn el and o ther go vernm entoffi ci al s unl aw ful l y deni ed hi m a s ec uri ty c l earance a nd di sc ri m i nat ed agai nsthi m i n h i s per form ance re vi ew s bec ause of hi s r ac e, gend er , and m ar i t al s t a tus ; c onf

i s c a t e d hi s c opy r i ght e d pr ope rty ; a nd r e f us e d t o hi r e hi m f

orm a ny po si t i on s f

or w hi ch he w as qu al i fi ed. R 1-3, A m endm entat1-4, 8-15 . H e a l l eged th ath i s su p erv i so rs d i scri m i n at ed ag ai n sth i m b y req u est i n g th ath e m arry a F i l i pi no w om a n. I d. a t5- 6. I n the “ I ni t i a l D i s c l os ur e , ” he c l a i m e d tha tthe de f e nda nt s : ( 1) vi ol a t e d the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntby c l a s s i f y i ng port i ons of

hi s E E O c om pl a i nt ; ( 2) vi ol a t e d the4

F if th A m e n d m e n t b y d e n y in g h im a c c e s s to th e c o u rts ; ( 3 ) v io la te d th e F o u rth A m endm entby se i zi ng hi s c om pu t erand h i s c op yr i gh t ed do cum ent s; (4) vi ol at ed 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 a n d th e F if th A m e n d m e n t b y c o n s p ir in g to a lte rad o c u m e n t in or de rt o s how tha the ha d di s obe y e d the or de r s of hi s s upe r i or , w hi c h c aus e d the s u s p e n s io n o f

h is s e c u r ity c le a r a n c e ; ( 5 ) v io la te d § 1 9 8 5 a n d th e F o u rte e n th A m endm entby conspi ri ng t o p re ss ure hi m t o m arrya F i l i pi no w om an; (6) vi ol at ed § 1985, T i t l e V I I , a nd the F i r s t , F ourth, F i f th, a nd F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt s by c ons pi r i ng t o r e voke hi s s e c ur i ty c l e a r a nc e , vi ac ode d m e s s a ge s ; ( 7) vi ol a t e d § 1985 by c ons pi r i ng t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns thi m by r e f us i ng t o hi r e hi m a nd by gi vi ng hi m i na c c ur a t e pe r f orm a nc e e va l ua t i ons ; ( 8) c ons pi r e d unde r§ 1985 a nd vi ol at ed hi s F i fth and F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh t s by s abot agi ng hi s m i l i t ary i n t el l i g en ce p ro

j ectw h en h e refu sed t o m arry o n e o f th e d efen d an t ’ s Jew i sh daug ht er ; and (9) vi ol at ed hi s F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s by r ef usi ng t o con du cta pre p u b lic a tio n r e v ie w o f

h is b o o k , e n title d D e p r a v e d I n d if f e r e n c e . I d . a t 2 - 8 . P i nson w as grant ed l ea ve t o am end h i s c om pl ai ntt o add addi t i on al defe nd ant s. R 1-10 at1-2. H e s ub se qu ent l y a m ended h i s c om pl ai nt , addi ng as d efen d an t s B i l l R . W ag o n er, Jerry P o rt er, C h arl i e L . C o rn ett , G eo rg e W . R eyes, P aul J. M as on , M ar i a R . D i M ar co, D ean P . Q uai n, T ho m as D . D al e, A l i t a A . F arr,Pinson’s claims ag ainst the orig inal defendants and the newly-named defendants were 1 identi c al. Thesameanalysisthu s a pp lie s tohisc laimsag ains t all o f t hename d de fendants . Th emotion

to dismisswa s fi le d on behalf of Rum sf e ld, Coh en, Caldera , a

nd Dr . F ra nc is 2 J. Ha rv ey, th eac tingSe c retary of the Dep artment

of theAr my . R1 -1 9, Memorand

um at 1, n. 1; 2 at n.2. At that time, the def endants named in the amende d complaint had not be en serve d with the c o mp l aint . Id . A f

t er th em ag i s trat ej u dg ere c o mm en d e d di s m i s s alo f

P in s o n ’ s s ui tini t s entire ty, the remaining de fenda

nts moved to dismi ss the complaint, incorporat i n g b y ref erence theother defendants’ motion to di s m i s s an dthe mag istrate judg e’s report a nd rec ommendation. R16-73 at 1- 2. Th edis tric t c ourt

gra nte d b oth sets of

de fendants ’ moti on s todis mis s all o f P ins on ’sc laims . R16-76 at 2. 5 an d R o b er t L as k y. R 1 -1 4 . P in so n alleg ed n o fa cts r eg ar d in g th e d istrict co u rt’s 1 pers on al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthese defe nd ant s and di d n otal l ege thatdefe nd ant s w er e G eo rg i a resi d en t s. T h e o r ig in a l d e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d to d is m is s , a r g u in g f ir s t th a t P in s o n ’s T itle 2 V I I c l a i m s s houl d be di s m i s s e d f ori m pr ope rve nue unde rT i t l e V I I a nd tha tthe i nt er es t s of j ust i ce di d n otw arranta transfe r of P i nson ’ s T i t l e V II cl ai m s t o ano ther j udi c i a l di s tr i c t , be c aus e P i ns on ha d w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue a ny di s c r i m i na t i on a n d r e ta lia tio n c la im s in th e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g iab y ap p e a lin g th e M e r it S ys t em P rot ec t i on B oard’ s ( “ M S P B ’ s” ) a dv er se rul i ng i n h i s c as e t o the F eder al C ir c u it. T h e y a ls o a lle g e d th a t, to th e e x te n t P in s o n s o u g h t to s u e th e d e f e n d a n ts in the i rof f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s , hi s c l a i m s w e r e ba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty. T o the ext entP i nson soug htt o sue the defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al c apa c i t i e s , the de f

e nda nt s c l a i m e d tha tP i ns on ha d f a i l e d t o pl e a d a n a c t i on p u rsu an tt o B i v en s v . S i x U n k n o w n N am ed A g en t s o f F ed eral B u reau o f N arco t i cs,6

40 3 U . S . 38 8, 91 S . C t . 19 99 (197 1), and thatany pot ent i al B i vens cl ai m s that P i nson coul d b ri ng w er e pre cl ud ed by the com prehensi ve st atut ory s chem e s et f orth i n the C i vi l S e rvi c e R e f orm A c tof

1978 ( “ C S R A ” ) , 5 U . S . C . § 1101, e ts e q. T he de f e nda nt s f urthe rnot e d tha t , be c aus e s e c ur i ty c l e a r a nc e i s s ue s a r e not r e v ie w ab le b y th e ju d ic ia ry , to th e e x te n t P in s o n a lle g e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts vi ol at ed § 1 98 5 b y denyi ng hi m se curi ty c l earance, hi s c om pl ai ntfa i l ed t o st at e a cl ai m . T he defendant s argued thatP i nson ’ s other § 19 85 cl ai m s w er e pre -e m pt ed by T i t l e V II and the C S R A and thatP i nson had n otes t abl i shed thatthe di stri ct c o u rt h a d p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rc e rta in d e f e n d a n ts . A s a n e xhi bi t , the de f

e nda nt s a tt a c he d the “ S t a t e m e ntC onc e rni ng D i s c r i m i na t i on” tha tP i ns on ha d s ubm i tt e d w i th hi s appe a l of the M P S B ’ s de c i s i on t o the F e de r a l C i r c ui ta nd c i t e d P i ns on v. D e pa rtm e ntof the A rm y , N o. 99- 3407, 20 00 W L 56 55 17 , at*1 (F ed. C i r. M ay10 , 20 00 ) ( per c uri am ) ( st at i ng that

“ P i ns on w a i ve d a ny c l a i m of di s c r i m i na t i on w he n he s ubm i tt e d hi s S t a t e m e nt C onc e rni ng D i s c r i m i na t i on pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l C i r c ui tR ul e 15( c ) . ” ) . R 1- 19 a t8; I d ., E x h . A . O n th e f

o rm , P in s o n h a d c h e c k e d th e b o x in d ic a tin g th a t “[ n ]o c la im of di sc ri m i nat i on by re as on of ra ce , se x, age, nat i on al ori gi n, or hand i capp ed c o n d itio n ” w o u ld b e r a is e d in h is ap p e a l. I d ., E x h A a t 1 . P i nson fi l ed se vera l re spon se s t o the defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , w hi ch7

w er e s tri cken because of thei r e xces si ve l ength and no n-com pl i ance w i th cou rt ru le s . P in s o n s u b m itte d m u ltip le v o lu m e s o f h is p e r s o n a l c o p ie s o f

h is e m p lo y m e n t r e c o r d s a n d , in h is r e m a in in g r e s p o n s e to th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d i s mi s s , Pi n s o n a r g u e d th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rtw a s th e p r o p e rv e n u e f o rh i s c l a i ms be c aus e he ha d s ubm i tt e d hi s e m pl oy m e ntr e c or ds t o the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof G eorgi a. R 3-34 , M em orandu m at6; se e a l so vo l um es R 4-R 9. P i nson further a r gue d tha the di d notw a i ve hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue hi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s by appe a l i ng the M S P B de c i s i on t o the F e de r a l C i r c ui t , be c aus e “ the M S P B de c i s i on w a s b a s e d o n F r au d ” a n d v a r io u s c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s , a n d th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it d e c is io n o n ly p e rta in e d to th e n a rr o w is s u e o f th e r e v o c a tio n o f

h is s e c u r ity c l e a r a nc e a nd nothi s a l l e ga t i ons of di s c r i m i na t i on a nd r e t a l i a t i on. R 1- 34, M e m o r a n d u m a t 1 , 3 - 4 , 1 2 . H e a r g u e d th a t th e M S P B d id n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to he a rhi s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd c i vi l r i ght s c l a i m s a nd tha t , be c aus e the M S P B a nd the F ed eral C i rcu i th ad refu sed t o ad j u d i cat e h i s co n st i tu t i o n al an d ci v i l ri g h t s cl ai m s, th e d e f e n d a n ts c o u ld n o t r a is e a n y B iv e n s “h u r d le s ” a t th is p o in t. I d . a t 7 . A s t o sov er ei gn i m m un i ty, P i nson al l eged thatsovere i gn i m m un i ty w as w ai ved w i th res pectt o h i s c l ai m s bec ause the “ E E O C i ss ued . . . three ‘ F i nal D eci si o n s’ th atg ran t ed [h i m ] th e ‘ R i g h tt o F i l e a C i v i l A ct i o n . ’ ” Id . at2 ; see al so i d. at19 -20. P i nson ar gu ed thatpers on al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe defendant s w as8

pr ope runde rthe G e or gi aL ong- A rm S t a tut e , O . C . G . A . § 9- 10- 91, be c aus e the D O D a n d th e D A b o th m a in ta in e d m ilita ry b a s e s a n d tr a n s a c te d b u s in e s s w ith in G eorgi a. P i nson st at ed thatthe defendant s “ w er e a ct i ng ou t si de of thei r off i ci al c apa c i ty ” i n vi ol a t i ng hi s r i ght s , a nd, thus , he c l a i m e d, he c oul d pr oc e e d w i th a B iv e n s a c tio n . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d di s m i s s a l of P i ns on’ s c om pl a i nt . R 13- 63 a t21. F i r s t , w i th r e s pe c tt o P i ns on’ s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge no t ed thatP i nson w as no tem pl oyed by the A rm y i n G eorgi a and thatP i nson had no tm ethi s burden t o sho w thathi s e m pl oym entre cords r egar di ng the al l eged a dve r s e a c t i ons w e r e m a i nt a i ne d i n G e or gi aortha t , butf orthe a l l e ge d unl a w f

ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e s , he w oul d ha ve w orke d f orthe A rm y i n G e or gi a . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f

urthe rnot e d tha tP i ns on’ s pe r s ona l c opy of hi s e m pl oy m e nt re co rd s, w h ich h e c laim ed h e m ain tain ed in G eo rg ia, d idn o t satisfy T it le V II ’s venu e provi si on re qu i ri ng thatthe em pl oym entre cords be offi ci al l y m ai nt ai ned and adm i ni st er ed by the em pl oyeri n the di stri ct . T o the ext entP i nson ar gu ed that th e ap p r o p r ia te v e n u e s h o u ld n o t b e d ic ta te d b y h is T itle V I I c la im s , b u t b y h is c ons t i tut i ona l a nd c i vi l r i ght s c l a i m s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d tha tthe s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e o f

T itle V I I in d ic a te d th a t th e d is tr ic ts d e ta ile d in th e s ta tu te w e r e in te n d e d to b e th e e x c lu s iv e v e n u e s f o rT itle V I I c la im s .9

T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e f

u rth e rc o n c lu d e d th a t, u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 0 6 ( a ) , it w oul d notbe i n the i nt e r e s t s of j us t i c e t o tr a ns f

e rP i ns on’ s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s t o a pr ope rf orum , be c aus e P i ns on w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue hi s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s i n a ny di s tr i c tc ourtby appe a l i ng the M S P B ’ s de c i s i on t o the F e de r a l C i r c ui ta nd a f f irm a tiv e ly in d ic a tin g o n th e “S ta te m e n t C o n c e rn in g D is c r im in a tio n ” th a t h e d id no tse ek t o p ursue a ny di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re j ec t ed P i nson ’ s argum entthatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ear hi s c l ai m s bec ause the F eder al C ir c u it d id n o t a d d r e s s th e m , a s th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it d id n o t h a v e th e ju r is d ic tio n to e nt e rt a i n hi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s , a nd P i ns on w a i ve d a ny s uc h c l a i m s by appe a l i ng t o tha tc ourt . M or e ove r , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge de t e rm i ne d tha tthe i nt e r e s t s of

j us t i c e di d notw a rr a ntatr a ns f e rof P i ns on’ s c l a i m s be c aus e the advers e e m pl oym entac t i on he chal l enges- -the re vo ca t i on of hi s s ec uri ty c l earance-

- is n o n - ju s tic iab le . F in a lly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e n o te d th a t P in s o n h a d f a ile d to s ta te ac la im b e c au s e T itle V I I d o e s n o t p r o te c t a g a in s t d is c r im in a tio n b a s e d s o le ly on m a r i t a l s t a tus . T hus , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d the di s m i s s a l of P i ns on’ s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s . I d. a t13. W ith r e g a r d to P in s o n ’s § 1 9 8 5 c la im s , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t, t o the e xt e ntP i ns on s oughtt o s ue the de f e nda nt s i n the i rof

f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s , the doc tr i ne of

s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty appl i e d, a nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s w a s i m m une f r om10

s ui tabs e nta n e xpr e s s , une qui voc a l w a i ve rof i m m uni ty . T o the e xt e ntP i ns on soug htt o b ri ng the § 1 98 5 cl ai m s a gai nstthe defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al c ap a c itie s , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t, a lth o u g h B iv e n s p e rm its s u its seek i n g m o n ey d am ag es fro m fed eral o ffi cers acti n g i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es, the C S R A of

f e r s a n a l t e rna t i ve m e c ha ni s m f orr e s ol vi ng P i ns on’ s c l a i m s a nd p r e e m p ts jo b - r e la te d B iv e n s a c tio n s b y f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e s . T h u s , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e c o m m e n d e d th e d is m is s a l o f a ll o f P in s o n ’s § 1 9 8 5 c la im s . I d . a t 1 6 - 1 7 . W i th reg ard t o P i n so n ’ s co n st i tu t i o n al cl ai m s, th e m ag i strat e j u d g e fi rst r e c om m e nde d the di s m i s s a l of P i ns on’ s F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m , be c aus e the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t s a ga i ns tc e rt a i n a c t i ons by the s t a t e s a nd doe s not appl y t o the f

e de r a l gove rnm e ntori t s a ge nc i e s . A s t o P i ns on’ s F i r s t , F ourth, a nd F i f th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge not e d tha tthe de f e nda nt s ha d not e xpr e s s l y w a i ve d the i rs ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , a nd, thus , the c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s i n the i rof

f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s s houl d be di s m i s s e d. M or e ove r , t o the e xt e nt P i nson ’ s c on st i tut i on al cl ai m s a gai nstthe defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es a r o s e o u to f

h i s f e d e r a l e mp l o y me n t , th e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e c o n c l u d e d th e c l a i ms w er e p re clu d ed b y th e C S R A . F in ally, th e m ag istrate ju d g e n o ted th at P in so n ’s F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m agai nstthe defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es p ert ai n ed t o ev en t s th ato ccu rred aft er h i s t erm i n at i o n fro m th e A rm y, an d , th u s,11

w a s notpr e e m pt e d by the C S R A . N e ve rthe l e s s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge de t e rm i ne d, the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m s houl d be di s m i s s e d be c aus e : ( 1) P i ns on ha d not a lle g e d f a c ts d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t a n y o f th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e p e r s o n a lly in v o lv e d in the pre-publ i ca t i on re vi ew of hi s boo k; (2) P i nson had n otes t abl i shed pers on al j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s ; a nd ( 3) P in s o n h a d n o t p r o p e r ly s e rv e d th e d e f e n d an ts w ith h is c o m p la in t. I d . a t 2 1 . A f t e rc ons i de r i ng P i ns on’ s obj e c t i ons t o the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on a nd i ss ued a j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng the ac t i on i n i t s e nt i re ty. R 16 -76, 77 . T he di stri ct courtdeni ed P i nson ’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on and P i nson t i m el y app ea l ed that order. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . P i n so n ’ s T i t l e V II C l ai m s 1. I m pr ope rve nue O n app ea l , P i nson as se rt s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d and com m i tt ed m ani fe sti nj ust i ce by concl ud i ng thathi s e m pl oym entre cords w er e notm ai nt ai ned i n the s t a t e of

G e or gi a . H e not e s , f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , tha tone doc um e nt wi th i n h i s e m p l o y m e n tr e c o r d s wa s f o rwar d e d t o aGe o r g i aa d d r e s s , wh i c h s h o ws thathi s f i l es w er e m ai nt ai ned i n G eorgi a. M oreover, he al l eges , even i f the di stri ct12

c o u rt w a s n o t th e p r o p e rf o ru m f o rh is T itle V I I c la im , h is c o n s titu tio n a l a n d c iv il ri g h t s cl ai m s sh o u l d n o tb e p reem p t ed b y T i t l e V II v en u e co n cern s. H e al so m a i nt a i ns tha tve nue c a n be e s t abl i s he d i n G e or gi aunde r28 U . S . C . § 1391, the generalfe dera l venu e s t atut e. W e r e vi e w the di s m i s s a l of al a w s ui tf

ori m pr ope rve nue f

orabus e of di sc re t i on . H om e I ns. C o. v. T ho m as Indu s. , Inc. , 89 6 F . 2d 13 52 , 13 55 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) . T itle V I I ’s v e n u e p r o v is io n s ta te s , in r e le v a n t p a rt, th a t th e ap p r o p r ia te v en u e fo r T i t l e V II cl ai m s i s: a ny j udi c i a l di s tr i c ti n the S t a t e i n w hi c h the unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e nt p r a c tic e is a lle g e d to h a v e b e e n c o m m itte d , in th e ju d ic ia l d is tr ic t in w hi ch the em pl oym entre cords r el evantt o such p ra ct i ce ar e m a i nt a i ne d a nd a dm i ni s t e r e d, ori n the j udi c i a l di s tr i c ti n w hi c h the a ggr i e ve d pe r s on w oul d ha ve w orke d butf orthe a l l e ge d unl a w f

ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e , buti f the r e s ponde nti s notf

ound w i thi n a ny such di stri ct , such an act i on m aybe brou gh tw i thi n the j ud i ci al di stri ct i n w hi ch the re spon denthas hi s pri nci pal offi ce . 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-5(f

)( 3). T he venu e provi si on s of § 20 00 e- 5(f) (3) w er e i nt ended t o be the e xc l us i ve ve nue pr ovi s i ons f orT i t l e V I I e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on ac t i on s and thatthe m ore genera l prov i si on s of § 13 91 ar e notcontrol l i ng i n such c a s e s . St e b b i n s v . St a t e Fa rm M u t . A u t o . I n s . Co . , 4 1 3 F. 2 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 2 - 0 3 ( D . C. C i r . 1969) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he pl a i nt i f f ha s the bur de n of

s how i ng tha tve nue i n the f o ru m is p r o p e r . S e e H o m e I n s . C o ., 8 9 6 F .2 d a t 1 3 5 5 . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by det erm i ni ng that13

P i ns on’ s c l a i m s w e r e f

i l e d i n a n i m pr ope rve nue . P i ns on di d noti ntr oduc e a ny e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t i ng, a nd, thus , di d notm e e thi s bur de n t o e s t abl i s h, tha tthe N orthern D i stri ctof G eorgi a w as the l ocat i on w here hi s per sonn el re cords w er e m a i nt a i ne d by a n of

f i c i a l c us t odi a n, w he r e the a l l e ge d a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons oc c urr e d, orw he r e he w oul d ha ve w orke d, butf ora n unl a w f

ul e m pl oy m e nt p r a c tic e . A lth o u g h P in s o n a r g u e s th a t h e m a in ta in e d h is p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s in G e o r g ia , P in s o n ’s r e c o r d s a r e n o t o f f ic ia lly a d m in is te r e d h e r e , f o rp u rp o s e s o f

T itle V II ’ s venue prov i si on s, § 2 00 0e-5(f )( 3). M oreover, because T i t l e V II cl ai m s are gove rne d by § 2000e - 5( f ) ( 3) , a nd the s e ve nue pr ovi s i ons s e tf orth the e xc l us i ve ve nue s f orT i t l e V I I c l a i m s , the pr ope rve nue f orP i ns on’ s othe rc l a i m s i s i rr e l e va nt to th is in q u iry . 2. Int er es t s of j ust i ce P in s o n a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t h e d id n o t w a iv e h is r ig h t to p u r s u e h is T itle V II cl ai m s i n the di stri ctcourtby appeal i ng the M S P B ’ s dec i si on t o the F eder al C i r c ui t . H e a l l e ge s tha the di d notc he c k the s e c t i on of the “ S t a t e m e ntC onc e rni ng D i s c r i m i na t i on” i ndi c a t i ng tha the w a i ve d hi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s . H e c ont e nds th atth e M S P B ex p ressl y w ai v ed i t s j u ri sd i ct i o n t o h ear h i s d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s, a n d , th u s , h e c o u ld n o t h a v e w a iv e d th e c la im s b y ap p e a lin g th e M S P B ’s d e c is io n . P i nson m ai nt ai ns thatno tal l T i t l e V II cl ai m s r el at ed t o sec uri ty c l earance14

r e v o c a tio n a r e n o n -

ju s tic iab le . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t, b e c au s e th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it d id notha ve s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on t o he a rhi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s , he s houl d be p e rm itte d to b r in g h is s u it b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d th a t h e d idn o t in te n d to w a i ve hi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s by i ndi c a t i ng on hi s “ S t a t e m e ntC onc e rni ng D is c r im in a tio n ” th a t h e h a d n o s u c h c la im s .

“ [ T ] he de c i s i on w he the rt o tr a ns f e rac a s e i s l e f

tt o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc ourta nd i s r e vi e w abl e onl y f ora n abus e of

tha tdi s c r e t i on. ” R oof

i ng & S h e e t M e ta l S e rv s ., I n c . v . L aQ u in taM o to rI n n s , I n c ., 6 8 9 F .2 d 9 8 2 , 9 8 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1982) . U nde r§ 1406( a ) , “ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc ourtof adi s tr i c ti n w hi c h i s f

i l e d a c a s e l a y i ng ve nue i n the w r ong . . . di s tr i c ts ha l l di s m i s s , ori f i tbe i n the i nt e r e s tof j ust i ce , transfe r s uch cas e t o any di stri ct. . . i n w hi ch i tcoul d h ave been broug ht . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 40 6(a) . W e have found such transfe rs re qu i re d o nl y i n the l i m i t ed si tuat i on w hen a party w as di re ct ed by a gov ernm entoffi ci al t o fi l e i n the i ncorrec t co u rtan d th e case w as t i m e-b arred b y th e t i m e i tw as d i sm i ssed . IT T B ase S erv s. v . H i c k s o n , 1 5 5 F. 3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; Sl a t i c kv . D i r e c t o r , O W CP, U . S. D ept . of L abor, 69 8 F . 2d 43 3, 43 4 (11 th C i r. 19 83 ) ( per c uri am ). G en eral l y, a fed eral em p l o yee seek i n g rev i ew o f cert ai n sp eci fi ed ad v erse e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s , o rth o s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s in c o n ju n c tio n w ith h is di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s, m ustproceed und erthe rul es and regul at i on s e nact ed15

pu rs uantt o the C S R A . S ee D oyal v. M ar sh, 77 7 F . 2d 15 26 , 15 35 -36 (11 th C i r. 1985) ; M c A da m s v. R e no, 64 F . 3d 1137, 1141- 42 ( 8th C i r . 1995) ; 5 U . S . C . §§ 77 01 (a ), 77 02 (a )( 1). T he C S R A prov i des f or the cr ea t i on of the M S P B , an

“ i nd ependent , qu as i -j ud i ci al fe dera l adm i ni stra t i ve agency e st abl i shed t o revi ew c iv il s e rv ic e d e c is io n s .” M c A d a m s , 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 1 ; s e e 5 U .S .C . § 1 2 0 4 . T he M S P B ha s j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e rt a i n s pe c i f i c a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons affecti n g fed eral em p l o yees, i n cl u d i n g d em o t i o n s, su sp en si o n s, an d t erm i n at i o n s. S e e C h ap p e ll v . C h a o , 3 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 7 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c itin g 5 U .S .C . § 7 5 1 2 ) . A f

e d e r a l e m p lo y e e w h o is te rm in a te d a n d a ls o a lle g e s d is c r im in a tio n in vi ol a t i on of

T i t l e V I I pr e s e nt s a“ m i xe d c a s e ” tha tm a y be appe a l e d di r e c t l y t o the M S P B . Id. ; se e 5 U . S . C . § 7 70 2(a) (1)( A ) and (B )( i ). “ A l tho ug h the M S P B do es n o th av e j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s th atare n o trel at ed t o ad v erse a c tio n s , it c a n e n te rta in ap p e a ls in ‘m ix e d c a s e s ,’ w h e r e a n e m p lo y e e a lle g e s aT itle V II vi ol at i on i n rel at i on t o o ne of the spec i fi ed adverse em pl oym entac t i on s. ” C happe l l , 388 F . 3d a t1375. O nc e the M S P B e nt e r s i t s f i na l or de rw i th r e s pe c tt o am i xe d c a s e , the f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e is a d v is e d th a t h e c a n ( 1 ) w a iv e th e d is c r im in a tio n c la im s a n d f ile ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on i n the F e de r a l C i r c ui t ; ( 2) o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e v i e w o f h i s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms i n th e EEO C;16

o r( 3 ) f ile ac o m p la in t in a n ap p r o p r ia te d is tr ic t c o u rt r a is in g b o th h is di sc ri m i nat i on and adv er se em pl oym entcl ai m s. 5 U . S . C . §§ 77 02 (a )( 3), 77 03 (a ) a n d ( b ) . I f

th e e m p lo y e e e le c ts to f ile ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w in th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it, he m ustcom pl et e a“ S t at em entC on ce rni ng D i sc ri m i nat i on , ” pursuantt o F ed. C i r. L oc . R . 15( c ) . L oc a l R ul e 15( c ) s e t s f orth the c ont e nt s of

the f orm tha tthe pe t i t i one rm us tc om pl e t e , i nc l udi ng a n a c know l e dgm e nttha the e i the raba ndons a ny c l a i m s of

di s c r i m i na t i on ortha ts uc h c l a i m s a r e nota m ong thos e f orw hi c h he i s s ee ki ng re vi ew . F ed. C i r. L oc. R . 15 (c )( 1)(A )( i ), (i i ); se e R 1-19 at8, E xh . A . In C h ap p e l, w e e x p la in e d th a t af e de r a l e m pl oy e e w ho w a nt s t o pr e s e rve both di s c r i m i na t i on a nd non- di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s a f t e raf i na l or de rf

r om the M S P B m us tdo so b y b rin g in g all h is re lated claim s in fe d er al d istrict co u rt. . . . [A ]n em pl oyee w ho choo se s t o app ea l an advers e a ct i on t o the F eder al Ci r c u i tw a i v e s h i s r i g h tt o p u r s u e n o to n l y a n y d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms h e w a i v e d b e f

o r e th e M SPB, b u ta l s o a n y o th e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms ari si n g o u to f th e sam e fact s. 388 F . 3d a t1378. I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n c onc l udi ng, un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 40 6(a) , thatthe i nt er es t s of j ust i ce di d n otw arrantthe transfe r of P i nson ’ s c l ai m s t o ano ther j ud i ci al di stri ct . Iti s und i sput ed thatP i nson appeal ed the M S P B ’ s a dve r s e de c i s i on t o the F e de r a l C i r c ui t . B y e l e c t i ng t o appe a l the deci si on t o the F eder al C i rc ui t , P i nson w ai ved h i s abi l i ty t o p ursue the17

di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s he r a i s e d be f or e the M S P B a nd a ny othe rdi s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s a r i s i ng f

r om the s a m e f

a c t s t o a ny f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt . S e e C happe l l , 388 F . 3d a t1378. B e c aus e the r e i s no f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourti n w hi c h P i ns on c oul d br i ng hi s T i t l e V I I c l a i m s , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe i nt e r e s t s of ju s tic e d id n o t w a rr a n t atr a n s f e ro f th e s u it to a n o th e rju d ic ia l d is tr ic t. B. Pi n s o n ’ s 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 5 Cl a i ms P i n so n st at es th ath i s § 1 9 8 5 cl ai m s are p rem i sed o n th e d efen d an t s’ vi ol a t i ons , a c t i ng i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s , of hi s F i r s t , F ourth, F i f

th, a nd F o u rt een th A m en d m en tri g h t s. H e m ai n t ai n s th atT i t l e V II d o es n o tp reem p th i s § 1985 c l a i m , a nd a l l e ge s tha tthe y c a nnotc l a i m s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty be c aus e the m a j or i ty of the de f e nda nt s w e r e a c t i ng out s i de of the i rof f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s a tone t i m e ora nothe r . H e a l s o a r gue s tha the s a t i s f i e d a ny s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty c onc e rns w h e n h e r e c e iv e d r ig h t- to - s u e le tte r s f r o m th e E E O C . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof am ot i on t o di s m i s s de novo, a c c e pt i ng a l l a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true . K y l e K . v. C hapm a n, 208 F . 3d 9 4 0 , 9 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . A d is tr ic t c o u rt m a y d is m is s ac o m p la in t f o rf a ilu r e to s t a t e ac l a i m onl y w he n i tappe a r s be y ond adoubttha tapr o s e l i t i ga ntc a n pr ove n o s e t o f f a c ts th a t w o u ld e n title h im to r e lie f . S e e L e a l v . G e o r g iaD e p ’t o f C o rr ., 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .18

T he el em ent s of a§ 1 98 5 act i on ar e: ( 1) ac ons pi r a c y ; ( 2) f

orthe purpos e of

de pr i vi ng, e i the rdi r e c t l y or i ndi r e c t l y , a ny pe r s on orc l a s s of pe r s ons of

the e qua l pr ot e c t i on of

the l aw s, or of equal pri vi l eges and i m m un i t i es un der the l aw s; and (3) an ac ti n furthera nce of the conspi ra cy ; (4) w here by a per son i s e i ther i nj ur e d i n hi s pe r s on orpr ope rty orde pr i ve d of a ny r i ghtorpr i vi l e ge o f a ci t i zen o f th e U n i t ed S t at es. P a rkv . C ity o f

A tla n ta , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A c au s e o f a c tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 8 5 “m a y n o t b e in v o k e d to r e d r e s s v io la tio n s o f T itle V I I . ” S e e G r e a tA m . F e d. S a vi ngs & L oa n A s s oc . v. N ovotny , 442 U . S . 366, 378, 99 S . C t . 2345, 2352 ( 1979) . T he e xc l us i ve j udi c i a l r e m e dy f oradi s c r i m i na t i on c la im in f

e d e r a l e m p lo y m e n t f

a lls u n d e rT itle V I I . B r o w n v . G e n . S e rv s . A d m in ., 4 2 5 U .S . 8 2 0 , 8 2 3 , 8 3 5 , 9 6 S . C t. 1 9 6 1 , 1 9 6 3 , 1 9 6 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . In som e i nst ance s, a pl ai nt i ff m ayse ek m on eydam ages fr om a f eder al o ffi cer acti n g i n h i s o r h er i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty b y b ri n g i n g a B i v en s act i o n . B i v en s, 403 U . S . a t397, 91 S . C t. a t2005. “ A B i ve ns a c t i on i s onl y pe rm i tt e d w he r e 1) the pe t i t i one rha s no a l t e rna t i ve m e a ns of obt a i ni ng r e dr e s s , a nd 2) the r e a r e no

‘ s pe c i a l f a c t or s c ouns e l i ng he s i t a t i on. ’ ” S t e phe ns v. D e pa rtm e ntof H e a l th & H um an S ervs. , 90 1 F . 2d 15 71 , 15 77 (11th C i r. 19 90 ) ( qu ot i ng B i vens, 40 3 U . S . at 396- 97, 91 S . C t . a t2005) . W e ha ve a l s o “ r e c ogni z e d tha tthe c om pr e he ns i ve s t a tu t o ry s c h e m e e s t ab l i s h e d b y C o n g r e s s r e l a t i n g t o f e d e r a l e m p l o y m e n t( C S R A) prec l ud es the m ai nt enance of j ob -r el at ed B i vens ac t i on s by f eder al em pl oyee s. ”19

I d . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , P i ns on s t a t e s on appe a l tha the onl y s e e ks t o s ue the d efen d an t s fo r th ei r v i o l at i o n s o f § 1 9 8 5 i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es. B ecau se P i ns on di d notc ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe doc tr i ne of s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p r e c lu d e d h is § 1 9 8 5 c la im s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts in th e ir o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t i e s , h e h a s ab a n d o n e d h i s c l a i m a s t o th a ti s s u e . S e e Ac c e s s No w, Inc. v. S ou thw es tA i rl i nes, C o. , 38 5 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ [T ] he l aw i s by now w el l se tt l ed . . . thata l egal cl ai m or ar gu m entthathas notbeen bri ef ed b e f o r e th e c o u rt is d e e m e d ab a n d o n e d a n d its m e r its w ill n o t b e a d d r e s s e d .” ) . M o r e o v e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d Pi n s o n ’ s § 1 9 8 5 c l a i ms agai nstthe defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es . B y a tt em pt i ng t o sue fe dera l o f f ic ia ls in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s , P in s o n s e e k s to b r in g aB iv e n s a c tio n . A ll of the § 1 98 5 cl ai m s P i nson det ai l s i n h i s c om pl ai ntre l at e t o h i s f eder al e m pl oy m e nt . S e e R 1- 3; R 1- 4 a t2- 8. T he C S R A pr ovi de s ac om pr e he ns i ve s t a tut ory s c he m e f

ora ddr e s s i ng P i ns on’ s e m pl oy m e nt - r e l a t e d § 1985 c l a i m s , a nd th e C S R A p r e c lu d e s e m p lo y m e n t- r e la te d B iv e n s a c tio n s b y f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e s . T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng P i ns on’ s § 1985 c om pl a i ntf or f a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m. C . P i nson ’ s C on st i tut i on al C l ai m s A gai nstthe D ef endant s i n thei r I nd i vi du al C apac i t i es20

P in s o n a r g u e s th a t h e d id n o t n e e d to s a tis f y G e o r g ia ’s lo n g - a rm s ta tu te to e s t abl i s h the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe de f e nda nt s , be c aus e he w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly o n ly r e q u ir e d to s h o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e r e q u is ite m i n i m u m co n t act s w i th th e U n i t ed S t at es rath er th an th e fo ru m st at e. H e ex p l ai n s, i n gr e a tde t a i l , w hy he di d notpr ope r l y s e rve the de f e nda nt s w i th the c om pl a i nt w i th i n th e 1 2 0 d ays req u i red b y F ed eral R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 4 (m ) b u tth en al so s ta te s th a t h e d id tim e ly s e rv e th e m . H e c o n te n d s th a t h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts c a nnotbe pr e e m pt e d by T i t l e V I I a nd tha ts ove r e i gn i m m uni ty s houl d notpr e c l ude hi s s ui tbe c aus e the de f

e nda nt s a c t e d out s i de of the i rof f i c i a l c apa c i ty i n vi ol a t i ng h is r ig h ts . T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as h el d th ata fed eral em p l o yee can n o tm ai n t ai n a cau se o f act i o n ag ai n sth i s su p erv i so r fo r v i o l at i o n s o f h i s F i rstA m en d m en tri g h t s, be c aus e s uc h ac l a i m i s gove rne d by C S R A pr oc e dur a l a nd s ubs t a nt i ve adm i ni stra t i ve prov i si on s w hi ch es t abl i sh ef fe ct i ve re m edi es for c on st i tut i on al vi ol a t i ons by the gove rnm e nt . B us h v. L uc a s , 462 U . S . 367, 368, 385- 86, 388- 90, 103 S . C t . 2404, 2406, 2415, 2417 ( 1983) ; s e e a l s o W e l l s v. F e de r a l A vi a t i on A dm i n. , 755 F . 2d 804, 809- 10 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( appl y i ng s a m e a na l y s i s i n the c ont e xtof

aF i f th A m e ndm e ntdue pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge ) ; s e e a l s o G l e a s on v. M a l c o m, 7 1 8 F. 2 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( ap p l y i n g s a me21

anal ys i s i n the cont extof F i rs t , F ou rth, and F i fth A m endm entcl ai m s) . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thati tl ac ked p er sonal ju r is d ic tio n o v e rap a rty d e n o v o . C ab le /H o m e C o m m c ’n C o rp . v . N e tw o rkP r o d s ., I nc . , 902 F . 2d 829, 855 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . “ W he n the di s tr i c tc ourtdoe s not c onduc tadi s c r e t i ona ry e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on am ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl a c k of pers on al j uri sdi ct i on , the pl ai nt i ff m ustes t abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of per sonal j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe no nres i dentdefe nd ant . ” I d. D et erm i ni ng pers on al j ur i s di c t i on i s atw o- s t e p i nqui ry . I d. F i r s t , the c ourtm us tde t e rm i ne w he the rthe l ong- arm s t a tut e of

the f orum s t a t e pe rm i t s the e xe r c i s e of j ur i s di c t i on. I d. I f

the a ns w e ri s y e s , the c ourtm us tthe n de t e rm i ne w he the rthe e xe r c i s e of j ur i s di c t i on s a tis f ie s th e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. I d . T he G eorgi a L on g A rm S t atue al l ow s G eorgi a c ou rt s t o exerci se pers on al ju r is d ic tio n o v e ran o n r e s id e n t if th e d e f e n d a n t: (1) T ransac t s any bu si ness w i thi n th[e] st at e; ( 2 ) C o m m its ato rtio u s a c t o ro m is s io n w ith in th [ e ] s ta te , e x c e p t a s to ac au s e o f

a c tio n f o rd e f a m a tio n o f

c h a r a c te ra r is in g f

r o m th e a c t; ( 3) C om m i t s at ort i ous i nj ury i n th[ e ] s t a t e c aus e d by a n a c tor o m is s io n o u ts id e th [ e ] s ta te if th e to rt- f

e a s o rr e g u la r ly d o e s o rs o lic its bus i ne s s , ore nga ge s i n a ny othe rpe r s i s t e ntc our s e of c onduc t , or deri ves s ub st ant i al re venu e f rom go od s use d o r c on sum ed or se rvi ce s r e nde r e d i n th[ e ] s t a t e ; or (4) O w ns, uses , or po ss es se s any re al prop erty s i tuat ed w i thi n th[e]22

st at e. O . C . G . A . § 9- 10- 91. P in s o n h a s ab a n d o n e d h is c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts in thei r off i ci al capaci t i es , because he a dm i t s on app ea l thatthe defendant s w er e a c tin g o u ts id e o f

th e iro f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s w h e n th e y a lle g e d ly v io la te d h is co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s, an d h e o ffers n o arg u m en tw i th reg ard t o th e d efen d an t s’ cul pabi l i ty i n thei r off

i ci al capaci t i es . S ee al so A cc es s N ow , Inc. , 38 5 F . 3d at 13 30 . B ec ause P i nson al l eges thatthe defendant s a ct i ng i n thei r i nd i vi du al c apa c i t i e s vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , he i s a tt e m pt i ng t o r a i s e aB i ve ns c l a i m . P i ns on, how e ve r , i s pr e c l ude d f r om m a i nt a i ni ng aB i ve ns a c t i on a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s f orthe a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of hi s F i r s t , F ourth, a nd F i f th A m e ndm e nt r i ght s tha ts t e m m e d f

r om hi s e m pl oy m e ntw i th the f e de r a l gove rnm e ntbe c aus e of th e c o m p r e h e n s iv e s ta tu to ry s c h e m e r e la te d to f e d e r a l e m p lo y m e n t, th e C S R A . S ee S t ephens, 90 1 F . 2d at15 77 . F urther, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned tha tP i ns on’ s F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s s houl d be di s m i s s e d, be c aus e the F ou rt ee nth A m endm entappl i es on l y t o st at es and st at e a ct ors, no tthe fe dera l g o v e rn m e n t. S e e U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . X I V , § 1 ( p r o v id in g th a t “N o S ta te s h a ll . . . deny t o any pers on w i thi n i t s j uri sdi ct i on the equal prot ec t i on of the l aw s. ”) . P in s o n ’s r e m a in in g F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts in th e ir23

i ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s c onc e rns the de f e nda nt s ’ r e f

us a l t o c onduc tapr e - publ i c a t i on r e v ie w o f

h is b o o ka n d it a r o s e a f te rP in s o n ’s f

e d e r a l e m p lo y m e n t w a s te rm in a te d . W i th regard t o thatcl ai m , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y det erm i ned thati tl ac ked p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e d e f e n d a n ts . P in s o n f

a ile d to m e e t h is b u r d e n to es t abl i sh thatthe di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s. S ee C abl e / H om e C om m c . C orp. , 902 F . 2d a t855. P i ns on m i s s t a t e s the t e s tf or p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n w h e n h e a lle g e s th a t h e n e e d o n ly s h o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts had m i ni m um cont ac t s w i th the U ni t ed S t at es . A l tho ug h P i nson ar gu ed bel ow that the D O D a nd D A both m a i nt a i n apr e s e nc e i n G e or gi a , he di d nota l l e ge , a nd the r e c or d doe s notr e ve a l , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc oul d obt a i n j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe i ndi vi dua l de f

e nda nt s vi athe G e or gi al ong- a rm s t a tut e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not e rri n di s m i s s i ng thi s c l a i m f orl a c k of

pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. I I I . CONCL US I ON P in s o n ap p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is c o m p la in t a lle g in g v io la tio n s , u n d e rT itle V I I , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 , a n d v a r io u s c o n s titu tio n a l a m e n d m e n ts , p r im a r ily r e la te d to h is f e d e r a l e m p lo y m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in de t e rm i ni ng tha tP i ns on ha d f i l e d hi s T i t l e V I I i n the i m pr ope rve nue ortha tthe i nt e r e s t s of

j us t i c e di d notw a rr a ntatr a ns f e rt o a nothe rj udi c i a l di s tr i c t . T he d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i d n o te rri n d i s mi s s i n g h i s § 1 9 8 5 c l a i ms o rh i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms24

a r i s i ng f r om hi s e m pl oy m e ntbe c aus e the C S R A pr e c l ude d the s e c l a i m s . T he di stri ctcourtal so di d n oterr i n d i sm i ss i ng P i nson ’ s F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m , w hi ch di d noti nvol ve hi s f

e de r a l e m pl oy m e nt , be c aus e he di d note s t abl i s h tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e in d iv id u a lly n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d a l l o f P i n s o n ’ s c l a i m s , a n d w e A F F I R M. AF F I RME D.