Case Name: Diane CALLANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and Dale Morioka, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 474
Docket Number: No. 07-15561
Parties: Diane CALLANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and Dale Morioka, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Diane CALLANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and Dale Morioka, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15561.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Russell A. Robinson, Esquire, Law Offices of Russell A. Robinson, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan Lee, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Diane Callans appeals from the district court's order dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Orsay v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 289 F.3d 1125,1128 (9th Cir.2002), and affirm.
The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Callans's employment claims because she was a "preference eligible" employee of the Postal Service, and could therefore seek redress through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ("CSRA"). See 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(l)(B)(ii); 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3); U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 4-5, 122 S.Ct. 431, 151 L.Ed.2d 323 (2001) ("Because [Gregory] previously served in the Army, she falls into the category of 'preference eligible' Postal Service employees covered by [the CSRA]."); Orsay, 289 F.3d at 1128 ("If the conduct that Appellants challenge in this action falls within the scope of the CSRA's 'prohibited personnel practices,' then the CSRA's administrative procedures are Appellants' only remedy."); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 840 (9th Cir.1991) ("[T]he CSRA is a special factor counseling against recognition of a Bivens remedy for [federal employees].").
Callans's remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.