Opinion ID: 64564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Bivens Claims

Text: The district court found that plaintiffs’ Bivens claims are preempted by a comprehensive framework that allowed them to supplement the Commandant’s record and to subsequently avail themselves of federal court review. However, the court’s consideration of Bivens preemption was premature because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Generally, “plaintiffs should not be able to circumvent administrative review through suit in federal court.” Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Dailey, 247 F.3d 565, 572 (5th Cir. 2001). In the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) context, this court has stated that “parties may not avoid administrative review simply by fashioning their attack on an FAA decision as a constitutional tort claim against individual FAA officers.” Id. Though federal district courts “have subject matter jurisdiction over Bivens claims raising broad constitutional challenges to FAA practices,” they lack jurisdiction over claims that are “inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits 9 Though Elsik also argues that an exception to the finality rule should apply, we find such arguments unconvincing in light of our previous statements that such an exception is “extraordinary” and available only when based on an “unambiguous” constitutional violation. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., 616 F.2d 1363, 1370–71 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting that “only exceptional circumstances justify court intervention in the administrative process prior to exhaustion of administrative remedies” and that an exception to the exhaustion requirement requires “a clear and unambiguous statutory or constitutional violation.”); Coca-Cola Co. v. FTC, 475 F.2d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1973) (“The extraordinary remedy of judicial intervention . . . is unavailable unless necessary to vindicate an unambiguous statutory or constitutional right.”). 12 No. 07-31121 surrounding an FAA order.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In Zephyr Aviation, a case of first impression regarding the exhaustion requirement and the availability of Bivens claims, this court ruled that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Bivens claims despite plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies in the FAA appeals system. Id. at 573. We reasoned that such jurisdiction existed because “Zephyr’s claims [did] not relate to an FAA order currently pending against it.” Id. at 572. Instead, the plaintiff was seeking “monetary relief for alleged extra-procedural and unconstitutional actions by FAA inspectors,” and “the administrative appeal procedure outlined in the Aviation Act” could not provide such relief. Id. This court thus distinguished the holdings of other circuits by stating that Zephyr Aviation’s case did not “implicate an FAA order that [was] currently in place” and therefore “could not function as a collateral attack on an FAA order or action.” Id. Though this court has not addressed this issue since Zephyr Aviation, other circuit courts have concluded that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when due process claims are “inescapably intertwined” with a review of the merits and procedure of an agency’s decision. See, e.g., Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc., 187 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 1999); Tur v. FAA, 104 F.3d 290 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514 (11th Cir. 1993). In Merritt v. Shuttle, the Second Circuit held that a district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a pilot’s Bivens claim because the statutory scheme provided for exclusive review directly in the court of appeals. The pilot in Merritt alleged that FAA officials had “failed to conduct a meaningful investigation and instead conspired to conceal their own negligence” by blaming the plaintiff for flying in bad weather. 187 F.3d at 266. The court reasoned that plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process claim was “‘inescapably intertwined’ with review of the revocation order” and that, despite plaintiff styling his Bivens claim in constitutional terms, he was ultimately 13 No. 07-31121 challenging “the manner in which the officials conducted themselves during and after the June 24 incident” and disputing “the ALJ’s factual conclusion that he bore responsibility for an ill-considered decision to take off.” Id. at 271. Such analysis would thus “result in new [district court] adjudication over the evidence and testimony adduced in the prior revocation hearing, the credibility determinations made by the ALJ, and, ultimately, the findings made by the ALJ during the course of the proceedings.” Id. (footnotes, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Such review, it reasoned, was inappropriate because the plaintiff “failed to complete the judicial review process by either perfecting an appeal to the NTSB or filing a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals.” Id. Similarly, in Green v. Brantley, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Bivens claims against FAA officials. 981 F.2d at 516. The plaintiff alleged that the officials violated his due process rights by “conspir[ing] to present false accusations against him with the intent to cause his financial ruin.” Id. at 518. The court concluded that the district court had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the FAA’s termination of Green’s Designated Pilot Examiner certificate was an appealable order that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a federal court of appeals after administrative review. Id. at 519–21. Again, the court reasoned that “[t]he merits of Green’s Bivens claims [were] inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the FAA’s order.” Id. at 521. The Ninth Circuit’s approach is also instructive. In Mace v. Skinner, the court ruled that the district court possessed jurisdiction over a Bivens claim because it constituted a “broad challenge to allegedly unconstitutional FAA practices.” 34 F.3d 854, 859 (9th Cir. 1994). In that case, an aircraft engineer alleged that: (1) “the FAA was not authorized to revoke certificates as a sanction for violating aviation safety regulations, nor was the NTSB authorized to try 14 No. 07-31121 such revocations”; (2) “only fines were authorized as a sanction for safety violations”; (3) “the FAA failed to promulgate rules relating to the revocation procedures, to give the public notice of and an opportunity to comment on such rules, and to publish them in the Federal Register”; and (4) “the FAA’s emergency procedures failed to accord Mace adequate notice of the revocation of his certificate.” Id. at 856. In the present case, the district court incorrectly assumed that it had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Bivens claims when it concluded that there was “a comprehensive framework to address and remedy claims of constitutional violations.” In fact, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ Bivens claims because such claims were inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedure and merits surrounding their respective D&Os. Unlike in Zephyr Aviation, where the plaintiff did not have to exhaust its administrative remedies because it was asserting claims that did not relate to an “order currently pending against it,” here the allegations of ALJs “fixing” cases necessitates a review of the ALJs’ decision making and the merits of each plaintiff’s arguments regarding whether his license should have been revoked. Also, unlike the plaintiff in Mace, plaintiffs are not broadly challenging the constitutionality of Coast Guard authority to bring revocation actions or its failure to promulgate rules relating to revocation procedures. Rather, plaintiffs’ Bivens claims resemble those of the plaintiff in Merritt in that they require a “new adjudication over the evidence and testimony adduced in the prior revocation hearing, the credibility determinations made by the ALJ, and, ultimately, the findings made by the ALJ during the course of the proceedings.” 187 F.3d at 271 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). We thus conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Bivens claims and that exercising jurisdiction over such claims “circumvent[s] administrative review through suit in federal court.” Zephyr 15 No. 07-31121 Aviation, 247 F.3d at 572. Based on this reasoning, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs’ Bivens claims.