Case Name: Chandrama MISHRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-30
Citations: 611 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 13-35719
Parties: Chandrama MISHRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Chandrama MISHRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-35719.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed July 30, 2015.
Chandrama Mishra, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v. United States, 529 F.3d 1243, 1245 n. 2 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mishra's action because it is precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA"). See id. at 1247-48 (CSRA limits federal employees challenging "prohibited personnel practices," defined as any "personnel action" taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.1991) (broadly construing the definition of "personnel action").
The district court properly denied Mish-ra's motion for default judgment because defendants filed a timely response to his complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).