N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT B R YAN JAM ES STR OTHER , Sgt., C a l ifornia Arm y Nationa l Gua

rd, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVID S. B ALDW IN, Adjuta nt Ge ne ra l, State of C a lifornia

Nationa l Gua

rd; M IKE M C C ORD, Pe nta gon C om ptrolle r; DEFENSE FINANC E AND AC C OUNTING SER

VIC E S; UNITED STATES DEPAR TM ENT OF DEFENSE,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15244 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00255-TLN-C KD
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

13, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, W
. FLETC HER , a nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s . In 2007, a re c ruite r prom ise d Se rge ant B ry an Strothe r a bonus a nd stude nt loa n re pa ym e nt if he re e nliste d in theC a lifornia Arm y Nationa l Gua

rd (“ C A 

# FIL ED
M AY28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.AR

NG” ). Strothe r re e nliste d, re c e ive d the bonus a nd pa rt of theloa

n re pa ym e nt,
and wa s de ploy e d to Ira q. Ye ars late r, the m ilita ry de te rm ine d tha

t Strothe r wa s not e ntitle d to his re e n l istm e nt inc e ntive s a nd be ga n “ re c ouping”the m from

his pa y . R oughly

1,400 othe r C A AR

NG m e m be rs we re subje c t to simila r re c o upm e nt
e fforts. An a dditional 16,000 m e m be rs we re pote ntia l ly

subje c t to suc h e fforts. In Fe brua ry 2016, Strothe r file d a

c l a ss a c t ion c om

pla int a g a inst the Adjuta nt 1 Ge ne ra l of C A AR

NG (David B a l dwin) a

nd the Pe nta gon C om

ptrolle r (M i c ha e l M c C ord) (c o lle c tive ly “ De fe nda

nts” ), in the ir offic ia l a

nd individua

l
c a pa c itie s. The c om

pla int sought injunc

t ive , de c la

ratory , and m one ta

ry re lie f ba se d on five c la im s : (I) “ fa ilure to tra in” pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983; (II) “ bre a c h/im

pa irm e nt of c ontra c ts” ; (III) “ i nte ntiona l m isre pre se ntation” ; (IV) “ de c e it or inte ntiona l fra ud” ; a nd (V) “ c o nc e a lm e nt fra

u d.” Afte r Strothe r file d his c o m p la int, C ongre s s pa sse d le g isla tion tha t re sulte d in the m ilita

ry c e a sing its re c oupm e nt e fforts a nd re turning a ll pre v iously re c oupe d funds to Strother and m ost othe r C A AR NG m e m be rs. De fe nda nts m ove d to dismiss thea c tion. Thedistric t c o urt found tha

t none of Strothe r’ s c la i m s we re m oot but dism isse d e a c h c la im on othe r grounds, a s

1 Som e filings inc orre c tly sta te tha t B a ldwin’ s titleis “ Adjunc t Ge ne ra l.” His prope r titleis “ Adjuta

nt Ge ne ra l.” 2de sc ribe d be low. The distric t c ourt dismisse d Strothe r’ s c om pla int with le ave to
am e nd a ll but the

c ontra c t c la im

(C la im II). Strothe r c hose not to a m e nd the
c om pla i nt a nd the distric t c o urt e nte re d fina l judgm e nt for De fe nda nts. This a

ppe a l followe d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm
. A. M o otne ss The distric t c ourt found tha t none of Strothe r’ s c a

use s of a c tion is
m oot be c a

use the re are possiblenom ina l da m a ge s unde r C ounts I a

nd II a nd possible dam a g e s be y ond the re turn of the re c oupe d m one y unde r C ounts III-V. W e a gre e . Eve n nom ina l da m a ge s suffic e to pre ve nt dismissa l for m ootne ss. Se e J ac obs v

. C

lark C t y . Sc h. Dist. , 526 F.3d 419, 425-26 (9th C ir. 2008).

B . C la im I

“ The first step in a

ny [§ 1983] c la i m

is to identify

the spe c ific
c onstitutiona

l right a l le ge dly

infringe d.” Albright v . Oliv e r , 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (plura lity

opinion). On a

ppe a l , Strothe r a

rgue s tha t his § 1983 c la im

(C la im I) a lle ge s a

due proc e ss viola

t ion of C A AR

NG m e m be rs’ c ontra c tua l right to the bonuse s de sc ribe d in the ir re e nlistm e nt a gre e m e nts. Thedistric t c ourt found tha t C la im I doe s not c le arly a l le ge suc h a due proc e ss viola

t ion, a n d tha t e ve n if it did, Strothe r’ s § 1983 c la im

would fa il a s a

m atte r of la

w. W e a gre e . Strothe r ha s fa ile d to ide ntify

a c onstitutiona

l right to which

his § 1983 c la im

c o uld a tta c h
3be c a

use , a s we disc uss furthe r in re lation to C la im II, soldie rs do not ha

v e a
c ontra c tua l right to the ir re e nlistm e nt bonuse s. C . C la im II C la im II a lle ge s tha

t De fe n da nts bre a c he d the ir c ontra c tua l obliga tions to C A AR

NG m e m b e rs “ by ille ga l ly

re c ouping m onie s.” The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d this c la im

unde r R ule 12(b)(6). In Be ll v . Unite d State

s , 366 U.S. 393 (1961), the Supre m e C ourt he ld that “ c om m on-la w rule s gove rning priva

t e c ontra c ts ha

ve no pla c e in the are a

of
m ilita ry pa y . ” Id . at 401. TheSupre m e C ourt a p plie d this princ iple to m i lita ry bonuse s in

Unite d State

s v . Larionoff

, 431 U.S. 864 (1977). La rionoff re pre se nte d
a c la ss of U.S. Na

vy m e m b e rs se e king pa

ym e nt of re e nlistm e nt bonuse s unde r the Varia b le R e -Enlistm e nt B onus (“ VRB ” ) program a s it e xiste d at the tim e the y
re e n liste d. Id . at 865. The C ourt he ld tha t La rionoff a nd the c la s s we re e ntitle d to the b onuse s. The C ourt ba se d its holding sole ly on the sta

t ute s a nd re gula tions gove rning the V R

B progra m . The C ourt did not hold tha t c la s s m e m

be rs ha d a
c ontra c tua l right to the ir bonuse s. In fa c t , the C o urt re a ffirm e d tha t “ a soldie r’ s
e ntitle m e nt to pa

y is de pe nde nt upon sta

tutory right.” Id . at 869 (quoting B e ll , 366 U.S. at 401). As Strother c onfirm e d at ora l a rgum e nt, he doe s not c la im that his bonus wa s a

uthoriz e d by

sta tute . Ora l Argum e nt a

t 10:59, Strothe r v . Baldw in , No.
418-15244 (9th C ir. M ay 13, 2019). His c ontra c t c la im (C la im II) wa s thus properly dism isse d with pre

judic e unde r Be ll and Larionoff.

D. C la im s III-V Strothe r’ s re m a ining thre e c la im s sound in fra ud. To thee xte nt tha

t Strothe r brings C la i m s III-V a ga inst De fe nda nts in the i r offic ia l c a

pa c itie s, he m

ust ide ntify an a p plic a ble wa ive r of sove re ign im m unity . The Fe de ra l Torts C la im Ac t (“ FTC A” ) is the only

re le va nt wa ive r and it doe s not a p ply be c a use Strothe r ha s not sa tisfie d the FTC A’ s a dm inistra tive e xha ustion re quire m e nt. Se eMc N e il v

. Unite d State s , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“ T he FTC Aba rs c la im a nts from bringing suit in fe de ra l c ourt until they have e xha

uste d the i r a d

m inistra t ive re m e die s.” ). To the e xte nt Strothe r brings C la im s III-V a ga inst De fe n da nts in the ir pe rsona l c a

pa c i t ie s, he m

ust ple a d those c la im s with pa rtic ula rity unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 9(b). Strothe r c o nc e de d at ora l a rgum e nt tha

t he did not ple a d his c la i m s with pa

rtic ula rity with re ga rd to De fe n da

nts B a ldwin a

nd M c C ord. Ora l Argum e nt a

t 11:54. AFFIRM E D
.

5