### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 08, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 03- 1316 2 D. C. Docket N o. 02-23079 -CIV -KMM JAM ES K. HARDISON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us MIC HAEL M. COHEN, in di vi du al ly, DE PA RT MEN T O F V ET ER AN S A FFA IRS, A n th o n y J . P r i n c i p i , a s S e c r e t ary, D ef en dants -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (J ul y 8, 200 4) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PRY OR, Circuit Judge:2

This appeal presents an issue that has divi ded courts and comm entators alike: whether a com

prehensive statuto ry

schem e that provides no rem edy for a fo rm er e m plo y ee of af ed er al a ge nc y , w ho c ont en ds tha t hi s di sc harg e vio la te d th e Co nst itutio n, bars the f

orm er e m plo y ee f ro m obt ai nin g any

m one tary

or e qui ta ble re lie f. I n de fe re nc e to C ongr es s, w e co nc lud e that the statut or y sc he m e bars a claim for m onetary

dam ages, but w e acknowledge, without deciding the issue, that a s er i o u s qu es t i o nre m ai n s wh et h ereq u i t ab l e r el i ef i s n ec es s ar i l y p re cl u d ed . We co nc lud e, how ev er , that this e m plo y ee is not

e nti tle d to e qui ta

ble r el ie f, be ca

use he did not have apr ope rty

int er es t i n th e posi tio n f

ro m w hic h he w as r em ove d. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STO RY O n Ju ly 1, 200 0, D r. Jam es K . H ar dis on b eg anathr ee -y ear ap poi ntm en t a s a m ed ic al r es ide nt i n th e podi atri c re sid en cy pr ogr am of the Mi am i D ep ar

tm en t of Ve terans A ffair s Medical Center (Medical C enter). H e w as appoi nte d un de r 38 U . S. C. se ct ion740 6, w hic h e nable s th e Se cr et ar y of the D ep ar

tm en t of V et er an s A ff ai rs ( V A ), A nth ony

P ri nc ipi , to em

plo y m ed ic al r es ide nts . O n June 14, 200 2, D r. Mi ch ae l C ohe n, w ho s upe rv ise s th e podi atry r es ide nts and i s th e he ad of the p o d i a try d e p art me n ta tth e M e d i c a l C e n t e r , f i r e dH ar d i s o nf

r o m th e p r o g r a m. Co he n a cc use d H ar dis on o f vari ous ac ts o f m isc ondu ct and p oor pe rf orm an ce of hi s m ed ic al du ti es .3

H ar dis on atte m

pte d to appe al his dis m iss al . H e m ai nta ine d th at r eg ulatio ns of the Medical Ce nter and grievance policies of the Council on Podiatric Medical Education (Council), the a ccre ditin g organization for the pod iatric re sidency program , r equired a preter m ination hearing and a postterm ination appeal. Cohen de ni edHard is on ’s reque st . H ar dis on the n su ed

Co he n, in his ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity , and P ri nc ipi , in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity . H ar dis on a sse rt ed that he ha d be ende nie d du e pr oc es s of lawin violatio n of the Fifth A m endm ent. H ardison requested three form s of relief : (1) a declaratory

j udgm ent; (2) re instatem ent, back pay , and a hearing and appeal re gard ing any

f uture te rm inatio n; and ( 3) m one y dam ag es . The district court r efer

red H ardison’s suit to a m agistrate j udge, w ho iss ued a re port and r ec om

m en da tio n th at

the c as e be dis m iss ed . O ne day a ft er the de ad lin e fo r fi lin g ob

j ec tio ns t o th e re port and r ec om m en da tio n, H ar dis on f

ile d a m otion for an e nlargem ent of tim e in which to file obj ections. T hat m otion wa s granted. H ardison filed his o bje ctions, along with his p roposed am ended co m pla int , but

a ga in h is f

ili ng w as aday

late . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m agistrate j udge’s r eport and recom m endation, denied Hardison’ s objections as unt im el y , de nie d le av e to f ile an am en de d c om

pla int , and d ism iss ed

the pe ndi ng co m pla int . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sone d th at T itl e 38 p ro vid es the sol e re m edy f or4

VAem ploy ees, and that all j udicial rem edies are precluded by that statutory schem e. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW Beca use this app eal ar ises from the dism issal of a com

plaint, under Federa l Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e Ru le 12( b) (6 ), w e ac ce pt the a lle ga tio ns i n th e co m pla int as true and construe them in the ligh t m ost favorable to Har dison . Hill v. White, 321 F. 3d 5 67, 569 -7 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . W e re vie wthe dis m iss al of ac om pla int fo r its f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d de nov o. N ex t Century Com m unication s Corp. v. Ellis, 318 F.3d 1023 , 1025 (11th Cir. 2003).

III. D ISCU SSION T o de te rm ine w he the r H ar dis on’ s c om pla int f ai le d to state ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d, w e m ust e va luate se parate ly

e ac h f orm of r el ie f he requested. W e first turn to H ardison’s r equest for m oney dam ages. W e then consider his request for equitable relief.

A . M one y D am ages un de r B iv en s H ar dis on s ee ks d am ag es f ro m Co he n f or his r ole in H ar dis on’ s a lle ge dly wr ongful d ischarge. In suppo rt of his claim against Cohen, H ardison argues that dam ages are available under Bivens v. Six Unkno wn N am ed Agents of Fe deral Bure auof N ar co tic s, w hic h pr ovi de s ac au se of a ct iona ga ins t a

f ed er al a ge nt who,5

w hil e ac tin g un de r the c olo r of f ed er al law , ha s vi olate d th e co nst itu tio na l r igh ts o f an indiv idual. 403 U. S. 388, 397, 91 S. C t. 1999, 2005 (197 0). Bivens actions are br ough t di re ct ly

und er the Co nst itu tio n, w ith out a statut e pr ovi din g ar igh t of ac tio n. B ive ns i nvol ve d a lle ge d vi olatio ns o f the F ourth A m en dm en t, but the Co urt ha s a lso a llo w ed

Bi ve ns a ct ion s f

or vio la tio ns o f the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F if th A m en dm en t, D av is v . P as sm an , 442 U . S. 228 , 99 S . Ct . 226 4 ( 1979 ), and the pr ohi bit ionof

c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t un de r the E igh th A m en dm en t, Carl so n v . Green , 44 6 U.S. 1 4, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 46 8 (1 98 0) . D am ag es c anbe obt ai ne d inaBi ve ns a ct ionw he n ( 1) the pla int if f ha s no al te rn at ive m eans o f obt ai nin g r edre ss and ( 2) no “ spe ci al f ac tor s c ouns el ing he sit at ion ” ar e pr es en t. S te phe ns v . D ep ’ t of H ea lth& H um . S er

vs. , 901 F . 2d 15 71 , 15 75 -7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) , cert . den ie d, 4 98 U.S. 99 8, 1 11 S. Ct. 5 55 (19 90 ). T hose spe ci al f

ac tor s “ inc lud e anappr opr ia te j udi ci al de fe re nc e” tow ar d th e w ill of Co ngr es s: “ Whe n th e de sig n of aG ove rn m en t pr ogr am

sug ge sts that C ongr es s has provid ed what it considers adequate re m edial m echanism s for constituti onal violatio ns that m ay

occur in the course of its adm inistration , w e have not created additio nal Bivens rem edies.” Schw eiker v. Chilicky , 487 U. S. 412, 423, 108 S. Ct. 2460 , 2468 (1988). T he S upr em e Co urt ha s “ re spon de d c au tio usl y to sugg es tio ns tha t B ive ns6

rem edies be extended into new contexts. T he absence of statutory relief for a constitu tional vi olation , f or exam ple, does not by

any m eans necessarily

im ply that co urts s houl d aw ar d m one y dam ag es a ga ins t the of

fi ce rs r es pons ibl e fo r the vio la tio n. ” Ch ili cky , 487 U . S. a t 42 1, 108 S . Ct . a t 24 67. I n B ush v. L uc as , the Su pr em e Co urt r ef

use d to a llo waf

ed er al e m plo y ee to m ai nta in, und er the F ir st Am endm ent, a

Bivens action against th e agency for which he worked. 462 U. S. 367, 103 S . Ct . 240 4 ( 1983 ). T he Co urt r ea sone d th at , a lth oughthe “ ex ist ing re m ed ie s d[ id] not

pr ovi de c om

ple te r el ie f fo r the pla int if f, ” id. a t 38 8, 103 S . Ct . at 241 7, the statut or

y r em ed ia l sc he m e w as “ cl earl y c onst itu tio na lly

a de quate . ” I d. at 378 n. 14, 103 S . Ct . a t 24 12 n . 14. B ec au se “ Co ngr es s [ w as ] in a be tte r posi tio n to decide whether or

not the pu blic interest would be served” by a dam ages rem edy , the B ush Cou rt ref used to su pplem ent “ an elaborate r em edial sy stem that has been constructed step bystep, w ith caref ul attention to conflicting p olicy considerations , . . . [ with] a newj udicial rem edy for the constitutio nal violatio n at is su e.” Id . at 3 88 , 10 3 S . Ct. at24 16 -1 7. InCh ili cky , the S upr em e Co urt a ga in r ef use d to a llo waBi ve ns a ct ionf or dam ag es to supp le m en t a statut or y r em ed ia l sc he m e that di d no t pr ovi de f ull co m pe ns at io n t o i nju redpa rti es . Chi li cky , 48 7 U.S. at42 8- 29 , 10 8 S . Ct. at24 70 . T he Ch ili cky

pla int if fs , w hose S oc ia l S ec ur ity dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts w er e w ro ngf

ull y7

term inated, filed suit for dam ages under Bivens on th e ground th at they had been de nie d du e pr oc es s un de r the F if th A m en dm en t. T he pla int if fs sim ult an eo usl y pur sue d a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s f or r ec ipi en ts o f So ci al S ec ur ity be ne fi ts, w ith so m e su cces s: all of t he pl ai nt iff s o bt ai ne d re in st at em en t t o t he pro gr am ; t wo ob ta in edful l re tro act iv e b en efi ts ; an d a no th er o bt ai ne d p art ia l re tro act iv e b en efi ts . Id . a t 41 7, 108 S . Ct . a t 24 64- 65. A lth oughthe pla int if fs c oul d no t be “ fu lly rem edied by

the ‘ belated restoration of back benefits[, ] ’ ” the Court held that

“ Co ngr es s is the body

c harg ed w ithm ak ing the ine vit ab le c om pr om ise s” in fa shi oni ng r em ed ie s f

or inj ur ie s r el at ing to “ m as siv e an d c om ple x” gov er

nm en t pr ogr am s. I d. a t 42 9, 108 S . Ct . a t 24 70. T he Co urt de cl ine d to a llo wthe pla int if fs to m ai nta in a

Bi ve ns a ct ionf

or dam ag es , be ca

use the Co urt f

ound “ no le ga l ba sis that w oul d a llo w ” a j udi ci al ly c re at ed r em edy to supp le m en t the adm ini str at ive r em edy

pr ovi de d by

Co ngr es s. I d. a t 42 9, 108 S . Ct . a t 24 71. In the sam e term

that it decided Chilicky , the S uprem e Court, in United States v. Fausto, held that a civil servant excluded from j udicial review of a pe rs onne l a ct ion , und er

the Ci vil S er

vic e Re fo rm

A ct of 197 8 ( CS RA ), c oul d no t obt ai n r el ie f unde r the Ba ck P ay A ct . 484 U . S. 439 , 455 , 108 S . Ct . 668 , 677 (1 988) . T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at “ [t ] he CS RAe sta

bli she d ac om

pr eh en siv e sy ste m f or r ev ie w ing pe rs onne l a ct iontake n a ga ins t f ed er al e m plo y ee s. ” I d. T he8

Court reasoned that the exclusion of the plaintiff fr om the class of em

ploy ees entitled to judicial review , under the C SRA , r evealed a “ considered congressio nal j udgm en t” that the pla int if f w as not e nti tle d to any

j udi ci al r el ie f. I d. a t 44 8, 108 S. Ct . at 6 74 . Following Bush, Chilicky , and Fausto, this Court, in Le e v. Hughes, r efused to a llo wate rm inate d e m

plo y ee to m ai nta in a

Bi ve ns c la im

f or dam ag es a ga ins t a fe de ra l a ge nc y . 145 F . 3d 1 272 (1 1thCi r. 199 8) . I n L ee , af orm er pr obatio n of fic er s ue d h is supe rv is or s an d a ll eg edth athi s d is ch arg e was raci al ly m ot iv at ed . Id. at 1273 . The off

icer w as excluded from

the adm inistrative and judicial review pr ov id edby the CSRA, an d, the refo re, h adno st atut ory rem ed y forhi s d is ch arg e. Id . a t 12 74. T he L ee Co urt he ld tha t the of fi ce r co uld

not br ing , und er

the F if th Am endm ent, a

Bivens action for dam ages because his exclusion from the rem edies of the CSR

A w as a “ special fac tor counselin g hesitation ,” which re flected an intent of Cong ress to aff

ord him no legal relief. Id. at 1277. T he Le e Court reasoned that, under “ this coun try ’ s long -respec ted separation of powers doctrine, courts shou ld be hesitant to provide an aggrieved plaint iff w ith a rem edy wher e Co ngr es s in te nti ona lly

ha s w ith he ld o ne . ” I d. Ba se d onour

pr ec ed en t i n L ee , H ar dis on’ s c la im f or m one y dam ag es f

ai ls. H ar dis on w as e xc lud ed , und er T itl e 38, f

ro m the r em ed ia l pr oc es se s a ff or de d to9

pe rm an en t V Ae m

plo y ee s. S ec tio ns 7 461 to 7 464 of T itl e 38 e sta

bli sh the dis ci pli nary

and g ri ev an ce pr oc ed

ur es that a

ppl y to se ct ion740 1( 1) e m

plo y ee s, the de fi nit ionof

w hic h e xc lud es “ int er

ns and r es ide nts appoi nte d purs uant t o se ct ion 7406 . ” 38 U . S. C. § 74 61( c) (1 ). Me dic al r es ide nts appoi nte d un de r se ct ion740 6 are n oten ti tl edto an y

of t he rem ed ie s af

fo rd edto pe rm an en t, fu ll -ti m e VA m ed ic al pr of

es sio na ls. It w ouldthwart the will of Congress to allow H ardison, w ho is exclud ed from the rem edies of T itle 38, to bring a Bivens action for dam ages, when pe rm an en t V Aphy sic ians, w ho are pr ovi de d li m ite d r em ed ie s inT itl e 38, are not al low ed , und er

Bu sh, Ch ili cky , and L ee , to br ing aBi ve ns a ct ion . C f. Be rr y v. H oll an de r, 925 F . 2d 3 11 ( 9thCi r. 199 1) ; M ax ey v. K adro va ch , 890 F . 2d 7 3 ( 8th Ci r. 198 9) ; H eane y

v. U . S. V et er an s A dm in. , 756 F . 2d 1 215 (5 th C ir . 198 5) . T he Te nth Circuit, in exam ining the statutory predecessor to section 7461 , e xplained that Congress int ended to prov ide a “ summ ary process by

which unqualified phy sicians previou sly

protected by

civil service could be expeditio usly separated fro m ser vi ce.” Fr an ks v. Ni m m o, 7 96 F.2d12 30 , 12 40 (10 th Cir . 19 86 ). All owi ng Hard is on to see k d am ag es un de r Bi ve ns wou ldun de rm in e th atpo li cy , as it w oul d gi ve gr eate r ri ght s to r es ide nts than to pe rm an en t V Aphy sic ians. T he district court, theref

ore, properly

dism issed Hardison’ s com plaint for m oney10

dam ag es . B . A va ila bil ityof E qui tab le R el ie

f Whe th er Hard is on can st at e a cl ai m forequi tabl e rel ie f is a cl os er que st io n. O ur sis te r ci rc uit s have r ea ch ed dif fe re nt c onc lus ion s a

bout w he the r the unava ila bil ity of aBi ve ns a ct ionf

or dam ag es f

or af ed er al e m plo y ee m eans tha t he is a lso barr ed

f ro m obt ai nin g e qui ta

ble r el ie f fo r ana lle ge d vi olatio n of the Co nst itutio n. A lth oughthi s C ourt ha s no t square ly a ddr es se d th at

que sti on, tw o of our pr ec ed en ts c anbe r ea d to sup port e ith er of the pos sib le answ er s. C f. S te phe ns v. D ep ’ t of

H ea lth& H um . S er

vs. , 901 F . 2d at 15 75- 76 w ithP er ry v. T hom as , 849 F.2 d 4 84 , 48 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) (pe r cu ria m ). The S uprem e Court has not addressed directly the issue whether a

rem edial s t a tu t o ry s c h e me n e c e s s ar i l y p r e c l u d e s ana c t i o nf o r e qu i t ab l e r e l i e f

b r o u g h tb y a fed eral em

pl oyee. Bus h a ndCh il ic ky add res se d o nl y Biv en s ac ti on s fo r da m ag es . Chilicky , 487 U. S. at 428, 108 S. C t. at 2470 (“ The r em edy sough t in Bush was virtually identical to the one so ughtby respondents in this case: consequ ential dam ages for har dship s resulting from an allegedly

unconst itutio nal denial of a statut or y r igh t. ”) . “ [F ] ed er al c ourts h av e his tor ic al ly ha d br oa d auth or ity

to fa shi on e qui ta

ble r em ed ie s[ , ] ” an d th e Su pr em e Co urt ha s no t r

ule d de fi nit ive ly that C ongr es s ha s th e au tho ri ty to pr ec lud e tho se r em ed ie s. C ar lso n v. G re en , 44611

U.S. at 4 2- 44 , 10 0 S . Ct. at14 84 -8 5 (R eh nq ui st , J., di ss en ti ng ). Se ve ra l of

our sis te r ci rc uit s have dif

fe re d onw he the r equit ab le r el ie f is pr ec lud ed by the pr es en ce of

astatut or y r em ed ia l sc he m e. I n M itc hum v. H urt, the Third Cir cuit stated that the “ power of the federa l courts to grant equit able relief for constitutio nal violatio ns has lon g been established.” 73 F.3d 30, 35 (3d Cir. 1995 ). T he Mi tc hum

c ourt a cknow le dge d, how ev er , that un de r the r ea soni ng o f Bu sh, a“ good

arg um en t c anbe m ad e” that a f ed er al e m plo y ee sub

j ec t t o a c o mp r e h e n s i v e r e me d i a l s c h e me “s h o u l dn o tb e p e rmi t t e dt o b yp a s s th a ts c h e me by br ing ing an a ct ionund er 28 U . S. C. § 13 31 and s ee kin g in j unc tiv e or de cl ar at or

y r el ie f. ” I d. a t 34 . T he T hir d C ir cu it ne ve rthe le ss r ef use d to appl y

the re as oni ng o f Bu sh t o su its f or e qui ta ble r el ie f an d r ea sone d “ that C ongr es s le gis la te s w iththe und er standi ng tha t this f orm of j udi ci al r el ie f is g en er al ly av ai labl e to pro te ctco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Id . at 3 5. InH ubbard

v. E PA , the D istri ct

of Co lum bia Ci rc uit r ule d th at “ the c ourts’ pow er to im pose e qui ta

ble r em ed ie s a ga ins t a ge nc ie s is br oa de r than it s po w er to im pose le ga l r em ed ie s a ga ins t i ndi vid ua ls. ” 809 F . 2d 1 , 11 n . 15 ( D . C. Ci r. 198 6) vacated on other ground s & rea ff’ d by Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F. 2d 22 3 (D. C. Ci r. 198 8) ( enbanc ). A lth ough“ Co ngr es s m ay li m it thi s po w er

. . . CS RAdid

not expli ci tly li m it our j ur isd ic tio n to e nj oinunc onst itu tio na l pe rs onne l a ct ion s by12

federa l agencies.” H ubbard, 809 F.2d at 11 n.15. T he rea sonin g of Hubbard w as affir m ed in Spagnola, in which the court stated, “ [T ] im e and again this court has af fi rm ed the r igh t of

c ivi l se rv an ts t o se ek

e qui ta ble r el ie f ag ai nst

the ir superviso rs, and the agency itself, in vin dication of their consti tutio nal rights.” Sp ag nol a, 859 F . 2d at 22 9- 30. The Nin th an d Ten th Cir cu it s h av e h el d t ha t, u nd er Bu sh an d C hi li cky , a co m pr eh en siv e re m ed ia l sc he m e bars af ed er al e m plo y ee f ro m obt ai nin g e qui ta

ble relief. In Sa

ul v. U nited States, the N inth Circuit reasoned, “ j udicial interference in f ed er al e m plo ym en t i s di sf

av or ed , w he the r the e m

plo y ee r eque sts dam ag es or inj unc tiv e re lie f. ” 928 F . 2d 8 29, 843 ( 9thCi r. 199 1) . I n L om bard i v. S m al l Bu sin es s A dm ini str at ion , the T en th C ir cu it expla ine d th at the “ cl ear pur

pose of Chilicky . . . is to virtuallyprohibit intrusio n by the Courts into th e statutory sc he m e. . . . T his j udi ci al int er ve nti on i s di sf

av or ed w he the r it is a cc om

pli she d by the c re at ionof

adam ag es r em edy

or inj unc tiv e re lie f. ” 889 F . 2d 9 59, 961 -6 2 (1 0thCi r. 198 9) . T he F ourth and S ev en th C ir cu its have a cknow le dge d th is div isi on o f au tho ri ty , but have not de ci de d th e iss ue . B ry an t v. Ch en ey , 924 F . 2d 525, 528 n .2 (4th Cir. 1991 ); Paige v. Cisneros, 91 F. 3d 40 , 44 (7th Cir. 1996 ). Com m entators have also drawn diff erent conclusions about thi s issue. D ean N ic hol c ri tic iz es the S upr em e Co urt f or dis play ing “ too str ong a he sit an cy . . . to13

re co gni ze c onst itutio na l dam ag es c la im s. ” G en e R. N ic hol , Bi ve ns, Ch ili cky , and Constitu tional Dam ages Claim s, 75 Va . L . R ev. 1117, 1154 (198 9). He argues that “ the pr es en t j uxt ap osi tio n of ahe sit an cy

to gr an t dam ag es aw ar ds w itha willingness to allow inj unctive relief . . . gets the tra ditio nal interplay betwee n law an d e qui ty

e xa ct ly ba ckw ar ds. E qui ta

ble r em ed ie s . . . are nor

m al ly a va ila ble onl y af te r le ga l r em ed ie s have be ende m onstrate d in ad equa te . ” I d. a t 11 35. N ic hol concludes th at dam ages shoul d be available “ when either the congression al rem edy is inadequate or the decision th at the Court is asked to m ake is com m itted to anothe r br an chof

gov er nm en t. ” I d. at 11 53. A nothe r co m

m en ta tor arg ue s th at

e qui ta ble r em ed ie s sh oul d be a llo w ed , un le ss th e st atut ory

rem ed ia l s ch em e is “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly suf fic ie nt .” Eli zab et h A. W el ls, N ote , I nj unc tiv e Re lie f fo r Co nst itutio na l V iol at ion s: D oe s th e Ci vil Se rv ic e Re fo rm

A ct P re cl ude E qui ta

ble Re m ed ie s?, 90 M ic h. L . Re v. 261 2, 264 5 (1992). O therwise, deficiencies in re m edial schem es would leave “ specific classes of feder al em

ploy ees w ithou t constitu tional protection s.” Id. De ny ing th e fe deral co urts “ the pow er

to re vie wthe suf

fi ci en cy of le gis la tiv e sc he m es ” an d pr ovi de equit ab le r el ie f vio la te s th e se paratio n of pow er s, be ca

use the c ourts are una

ble to se rv e “ as ac he ck

on o the r br an ch es of

gov er nm en t. ” I d. a t 26 42. C ivi l se rv an ts, the re fo re , m

ust “be able to se ek

e qui ta ble r el ie f thr oughthe f

ed er al c ourts, or

the ir14

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s m ay

be ren de redm ean in gl es s.” Id . at 2 64 5. A lth oughsom e co urts o f ap pe al s and c om m en ta tor s have r ea d our de ci sio n in S te phe ns v . D ep ar

tm en t of H ea lth& H um anS er

vic es a s f or ec los ing e qui ta

ble re m ed ie s inthe f

ac e of ac om pr eh en siv e re m ed ia l st at

uto ry sc he m e, Mi tc hum , 73 F. 3d at 34; Paige, 91 F. 3d at 44; Martin H. Redish & Suzanna Sher ry , F ederal Co urts 8 74 ( 4the d. 199 8) , w e ar e unpe rs ua de d th at thi s c ir cu it ha s r

ule d square ly on the iss ue f

or thr ee r ea sons . F ir st, in St ep he ns w e did not m en tio n any

pos sib le dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n le ga l and e qui ta ble r el ie f. S ec ond, the pla int if f in S te phe ns w as e lig ibl e fo r an d to ok a dvanta ge of an a dm ini str at ive r em edy . S te phe ns, 901 F. 2d at 15 73- 74. H ad

the S te phe ns p la int if

f be enle ft

w ith out ar em edy , it

is not cl ear that this Co urt w oul d have f ound that hi s e qui ta

ble c la im w as barr ed . T hir d, St ep he ns d id n ot d isc uss P er ry v. T hom as , w hic h he ld tha t the f ed er al c ourts “ have the pow er to iss ue inj unc tiv e re lie f, in ap pr opr ia te c as es , in dis put es be tw ee n th e U nit ed S ta te s and i ts e m

plo y ee s, notw ith standi ng the e xis te nc e of a dm ini str at ive rem ed ie s.” 8 49 F.2dat 4 84 . W e m ust r es olv e thi s di ff

ic ult que sti on o nly

if H ar dis on p oss es se d a pr ope rty int er es t i n hi s f

orm er pos iti on w iththe Me dic al Ce nte r. I m pli ci t i n any cl ai m und er the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F if th A m en dm en t i s th e re qui re m en t that the int er es t thr eate ne d be e ith er “ lif e, li be rty , or

pr ope rty . ” U . S. Co nst .15

Am end. V . Hardison con tends that he has a property interest in his em

ploym ent as a m ed ic al r es ide nt, but

the w or d “pr ope rty ” m

ust be giv en“ som e m eanin g. ” Bd . of Re ge nts v. Ro th, 408 U . S. 564 , 572 , 92 S . Ct . 270 1, 270 6 ( 1972 ). P ro pe rty int er es ts are not

c re at ed by the Co nst itu tio n, but

“ ar e cr eate d and the ir

dim en sio ns ar e de fi ne d by

e xis tin g r

ule s or und er standi ngs that st em f ro m an in de pe nde nt sour ce suc h a s st at e law– r ule s or und er standi ngs that se cure c er ta in b en ef

its and th atsupp or t cl ai m s o f en ti tl em en t t o t ho se be ne fit s.” Id . at 5 77 , 92 S. Ct. at 27 09 . Federa l law, no less than st ate law , c an provide the rules or und erstandings that cr eate and d ef

ine pr ope rty

int er es ts. S ee Mathe w s v. E ldr idg e, 424 U . S. 319 , 332 , 96 S. C t. 893, 901 (1976). W e m ust, theref

ore, exam ine the federa l laws under w hic h H ar dis on w as e m

plo y ed by af ed er al a ge nc y

to de te rm ine w he the r tho se l aw s r e a s o n ab l y c o u l ds up p o rtap r o p e rty i n t e r e s ti nh i s r e s i d e n c y. T itl e 38 g ive s no sup port t o H ar dis on’ s c la im that he ha s apr ope rty

int er es t in h is f orm er j ob p ro te ct ed

by the Co nst itu tio n. H ar dis on w as appoi nte d un de r 38 U . S. C. se ct ion740 6, w hic h a llo w s th e Se cr et ar y of the V Ato ap poi nt r es ide nts an d in te rn s. S ec tio n 74 06 e m plo y ee s are appoi nte d “ w ith out r eg ar d to c ivi l se rv ic e or c la ssi fi catio n law s, r

ule s, or r eg ulatio ns. ” I d. § 74 06( a) (1 ). S ec tio n 7406 a lso giv es dis cr et ionto the S ec re tary in m an ag ing the e m

plo ym en t de ta ils of re sid en ts and i nte rn s. I d. § 74 06( b) , ( c) . T hose e m plo y ee s are de nie d any

r igh t t o16

appeal an adverse per sonn el action. Id. § 7461(c)(1). H ardison was a te m porary em plo y ee , and h e w as appoi nte d un de r a sy ste m that a llo w s e m

plo y ee s to be

“ expe dit iou sly

se parate d f

ro m se rv ic e. ” F ranks, 796 F . 2d at 12 40. H ar dis on’ s c ont en tio n th at he ha s apr ope rty

int er es t i n hi s j ob i s si m ilar to the c ont en tio n a dvanc ed

by the pla int if

fs in Si lva

v. Bi el uc h, 351 F . 3d 1 045 (1 1th Ci r. 200 3) . I n S ilv a, the pla int if fs w er e de puty

she ri ff s who w er e de m ote d f

ro m their positi ons as prob ationary lieutenants. Id. at 1046. T hose plaint iffs asserte d that the ir due pr oc es s r igh ts w er e vio la te d be ca use the y w er e de m ote d w ith out

a hearing. I d. at 1047. T his Court conclud ed that, beca use their appoint m ents wer e pr obatio nary , the pla int if fs ha d no pr ope rty

int er es t. I d. a t 10 47- 48. L ike the pla int if fs in Si lva , H ar dis on h ad

ne ith er aguarante e of

f uture e m plo ym en t w iththe Me dic al Ce nte r, nor

astatut or y r igh t t o a ppe al any a dve rs e pe rs onne l a ct ion , and he, ther efore, cannot prove that he had a property interest in his job at the Medical Center. Fi na lly , H ar dis on c om

pla ins that C ohe n vi olate d th e gr ie vanc e pol ic ie s of the Co unc il, w hic h r equir ed that a ll podi at

ri c re sid en ts b e af

fo rd ed a pr et er m inatio n he ar ing and a

pos tte rm inatio n a

ppe al . B ec au se H ar dis on d oe s no t an d c annot

a lle ge that the gr ie vanc e pol ic ie s e sta bli she d th e ex cl usi ve gr ound s uponw hic h hi s di sc harg e co uld be ba se d no r that a

pod ia tr y r es ide nt c oul d be17

dis ch ar ge d on ly

f or c au se , the gr ie vanc e pol ic ie s di d no t c re at e a pr ope rty int er es t in Har dison ’ s em

ploym ent. Z eigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11 th Cir. 1983 ); O gletree v. Chester, 682 F.2d 1366 , 1369 (11th Cir. 1982); United Steelw orkers of A m ., AF L- CIO v. Univ. of A la., 599 F.2d 56, 59-61 (5th Cir. 1979 ). H ar dis on a lso did not ple ad abr ea chof

c ontra ct c la im , und er

state law , and atora l ar gu m en t h is co un se l co nc ed edth athe di d n otsee k re li ef u nd er s ta te law. T his arg um en t, the re fo re , f ai ls. A lth oughit

did not dis tin gui sh b etw ee n H ar dis on’ s r eq ue sts f or le ga l and equit ab le r el ie f, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

H ar dis on’ s c om

pla int f or both form s of relief

. W e m ay , of course, a ffirm the j udgm ent of the district court on any gr ound that f ind s su ppor t i n th e re co rd . L uc as v. W . W . G ra ing er , I nc . , 257 F. 3d 12 49, 1256 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). A s to Har dison ’ s request for equitable relief , w e ne ed not de ci de , a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt f ound , that the r em ed ia l sc he m e of T itl e 38 b ar s H ar dis on’ s c la im , be ca use the r ec or d e sta

bli she s th at

H ar dis on d id n ot have apr ope rty

int er es t i n hi s e m

plo ym en t. IV. C ONC LUS ION Hardison’s Bivens claim

for m oney

dam ages is barred by

the rem edial pr ovi sio ns o f T itl e 38, and b ec au se H ar dis on d id n ot h av e a pr ope rty int er es t i n hi s fo rm er pos iti on p ro te ct ed

by the Co nst itu tio n, he c annot state ac la im

f or e qui ta ble18

re lie f. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt, w hic h di sm iss ed H ar dis on’ s c om

pla int fo r fa ilure to state ac la im , is AFFIRMED.