T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NO R MAN P E C K, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B E T H W E N S T R O M ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17894 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 1 5 1 - J A MDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N o rm a n P e c kap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d e n y in g h is m ot i on f orr e m a nd a nd di s m i s s i ng f orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on hi s a c t i on c ha l l e ngi ng hi s t e rm i na t i on f r om the D e pa rtm e ntof

the I nt e r i or ’ s B ur e au of L a nd 

# FI LED MA R 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17894 2 M a na ge m e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the e xi s t e nc e of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on, a nd f orc l e a re rr ora nyf

a c tua l f i ndi ngs r e g a r d in g ju r is d ic tio n a l is s u e s . Sc hnabe l v . L ui , 30 2 F . 3d 10 23 , 10 29 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed P ec k’ s m ot i on for r em and b ec ause P ec k fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathi s s t at e l aw cl ai m s a gai nsti nd i vi du al fe dera l em pl oyee s w ho w e r e c e rt i f

i e d bythe U . S . A tt orne yG e ne r a l t o be a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of thei r e m pl oym entshou l d n otproceed i n feder al courtun der the F eder al T ort C l a i m s A c t( “ F T C A ” ) w i th the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s the pr ope rde f e nda nt . See O sb o rn v. H al ey , 5 4 9 U . S . 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 -3 2 , 2 5 2 (2 0 0 7 ) (w h ere t o rtcl ai m s are b ro u g h tag ai n st a f eder al em pl oyee , U . S . A tt orney G ener al ’ s c ert i fi ca t i on thatem pl oyee ac t ed w i thi n the s c ope of

hi s e m pl oy m e ntr e qui r e s tha tthe e m pl oy e e be di s m i s s e d f r om the ac t i on , the U ni t ed S t at es be subst i tut ed i n, and the ca se proceed i n federa l court u n d e rth e F T C A ) ; B i l l i ngs v . U ni ted States , 57 F . 3d 797, 800 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( A tt orne yG e ne r a l ’ s c e rt i f i c a t i on tha taf

e de r a l e m pl oy e e w a s a c t i ng w i thi n the sc op e of e m pl oym entm ustbe di sproved b y aprepon derance of the evi dence). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e P e c k’ s a c t i on b e c au s e e a c h o f

h is c la im s r e la te d to d e f e n d an ts ’ c o n d u c t w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e ir em pl oym enti n al l egedl y i m prop er l y r em ov i ng hi m fr om fe dera l se rvi ce , and, as11- 17894 3 s uc h, w e r e pr e e m pt e d bythe e xc l us i ve a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s pr ovi de d unde rthe C iv il S e rv ic e R e f

o rm A c t ( th e “C S R A ” ) . See 5 U .S .C . § 2 3 0 2 ( C S R A ap p lie s to c l a i m s c onc e rni ng pr ohi bi t e d pe r s onne l pr a c t i c e s , w hi c h br oa dl yi nc l ude a ny d e c is io n ta k e n f

o ra n im p r o p e rm o tiv e a s to af e d e r a l e m p lo y e e ’s ap p o in tm e n t, p r o m o tio n , r e a s s ig n m e n t, tr a in in g , te rm in a tio n , o rr e in s ta te m e n t) ; M ah tes i an v. L ee , 4 0 6 F . 3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 4 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (i f th e ch al l en g ed co n d u ctco n st i tu t es a pr ohi bi t e d pe r s onne l pr a c t i c e unde rthe C S R A , the n the C S R A ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e dur e s a r e pl a i nt i f

f’ s e xc l us i ve r e m e dy , pr e e m pt i ng a l l othe rc l a i m s , a nd fe dera l court s c anno tre sol ve such cl ai m s und erthe F T C A ). P e c k ’s c o n te n tio n s r e g a r d in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s a lle g e de rr o r s in f a ilin g to a d d r e s s h is m o tio n s f

o rd is c o v e ry , s a n c tio n s , a n do th e rr e lie f a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . See Wa g e s v . I

RS , 915 F . 2d 1230, 1234 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( a f t e ror de r i ng di s m i s s a l f

or l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , a di stri ctcourtre t ai ns no po w ert o i ss ue order re l at i ng t o the m er i t s of the ca se ). AF F I RME D.