N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN J. C OTA, C a

pta i n, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17678 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00576-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER , WARDLAW , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. C a pta in John J. C ota a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his c o m pla int c ha lle nging theC oa st Gua rd’ s fina l de c ision to deny re ne wa l of C ota ’ s M e rc ha nt M arine r C re de n tia l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED DEC 31 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. C ota fa ile d to sta

te a c la im tha t the C oa st Gua

rd’ s fina l de c i sion to de ny his re ne wa l a

pplic a tion wa s a

rbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or othe rwise not in a c c orda

nc e with thela

w in viola tion of theAdm inistra

tive Proc e d ure Ac t (“ APA” ). S

e e 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A). C ota argue s tha

t the C oa st Gua rd’ s proc e s s for re vie wing his a pplic ation a

nd a p pe a l de nie d

him the opportunity

to re spond to the de te rm i nations of the Nationa l M aritim e C e nte r (“NM C ” ) and C om

m an d ant of the C oa st Gua rd. This a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use the C oa st Gua

rd provide d C ota

an opportunity

to re spond to e a c h of its re a sons for de ny ing his a

pplic a tion. Spe c i fic a lly , the NM C ’ s April 29, 2011 supple m e nta l m e m o randum a ddre sse d e a c h of the thre e grounds for theC oa st Gua rd’ s de c ision. C ota re c e ive d, re vie we d, a

nd re sponde d to this me m orandum in his le tte r of M ay 20, 2011. The

C om m a nda nt de nie d C ota ’ s a

pplic a tion a fte r re vie wing C ota ’ s re sponse . The re fore , C ota ha s fa ile d to sta

te a c la im tha t the C oa st Gua

rd arbitra rily or c a pric iously de prive d him

of a n opportunity

to re spond to its re a sons for de ny ing his re ne wa l a pplic ation. 2. C ota

a lso fa ile d to sta

te a c la im tha t the C oa st Gua

rd viola te d the APA by m isa pply ing its governing sta

tute s an d re g ulations. TheC o m m anda n t did not im prope rly re ly upon 46 U.S.C . § 7101(e ), whic h se ts forth thec onditions unde r whic h a n individual m ay

be issue d a pilot’ s lic e nse . Se e 4 6 U.S.C . -2-§ 7101(c )(2), (e ). The C om m anda nt a d dre sse d § 7101(e ) to distinguish the profe s siona l qua lific a tions for a m a ste r of towing ve sse ls from the qua lific a tions

“ for [C ota ’ s] othe r offic e r e ndorse m e nts”

— inc luding C ota ’ s e ndorse m e nt a s a pilot. Se c tion 7101(e ) thus supports the proposition for which the C om m anda nt c ite d it: by

satisfy ing the profe ssiona l qua lific a tions for a m a ste r of towing, C ota would not ne c e ssa

rily sat i sfy the re quire m e nts for his “ othe r e n dorse m e nts,” one of whic h (i.e ., his e n dorse m e nt a s a pilot) re quire d him

to sa tisfy the a dditiona l re quire m e nts of § 7101(e ). Nor did theC oa st Gua rd fa il to c o m

ply with 46 C .F.R . § 10.237, whic h se ts forth theproc e dure s for notify ing a n a pplic a n t of his right to a ppe a l from

a de c ision de ny ing his a

pplic a tion. TheC oa st Gua rd satisfie d the re quire m e nts of § 10.237(a ) be c a use it provide d

C o ta a writte n sta

te m e nt listing the re a s ons for de nia l in both its Ja n ua ry 28, 2011 le tte r and its April 29, 2011 supple m e nta l m e m orandum . Se e 46 C .F.R . § 10.237(a). 3. To the e xte nt tha

t the C oa st Gua

rd m a de any

proc e dura l e rrors in de ny ing C ota ’ s re n e wa l a p plic a tion, noneof those e rrors wa s pre judic ia l. Se e N

at’l Ass’n of Home Builde rs v . De fs. of W ildlife , 551 U.S. 644, 659–60 (2007). C ota doe s not c ha l le nge the outc om e of the C oa st Gua rd’ s re vie wof his re ne wa l a pplic a tion. As a re sult, C ota ha s fa ile d to ide ntify

any wa y in whic h the

-3-proc e d

ura l e rrors tha

t he a l le ge s c a

use d him pre judic e . Ac c o rdingly , a

ny proc e d ura l e rror by the C oa st Gua rd wa s ha rm le ss. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing C o ta ’ s c la im for de c la ra tory re lie f. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2201(a ). De c la ra t ory re lie f m ay

be de nie d whe n it will “

risk duplic a tive litiga

tion” or fa il to “ se rve a

use ful purpose in c la rify ing the le ga l re lations a t issue .” Allstate

Ins. C o. v . He r ron , 634 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th C ir. 2011). C ota sought a de c la ra tion tha t “ the C om

m anda nt’ s and the Unite d State s C oa st Gua

rd’ s fina l a ge nc y

a c t ion . . . e m

ploy e d a proc e ss tha

t is arbitra ry , c a pric ious a nd a n a buse of disc re tion.” This c la im is c oe x te nsive with C ota ’ s APA c ha lle nge to the C oa st Gua rd’ s de c ision. Thea djudic at ion of this c la im would se rve no use ful purpose and would inste a d duplic ate the a djudic a tion of C ota ’ s APA c la im . The d i stric t c ourt wa s the re fore within its disc re tion to dism iss C ota ’ s c la im

for de c la ra tory re lie f. AFFIRM E D.

-4-