Opinion ID: 757259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Counts II-IV

Text: 2 The district court dismissed Counts II-IV of Blue's complaint on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Blue failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm on the first ground and do not discuss the second. 3 The plaintiff in a lawsuit against the United States must point to an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1983). Whether the government waives its sovereign immunity is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ma v. Reno, 114 F.3d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1997). 4 On appeal, Blue asserts jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA waives sovereign immunity for actions against the United States and its agencies brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (i.e., federal question jurisdiction) to the extent that nonmonetary relief is sought. Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 797 (9th Cir.1980). The district court determined that the APA did not provide a basis for jurisdiction, because jurisdiction was preempted by 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511 and 7701 et seq., the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). 5 Blue's claims in Counts II-IV constitute prohibited personnel practices as described in the Veteran's Preference Act (VPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). The CSRA provides for procedures to challenge such actions. Veit v. Heckler, 746 F.2d 508, 510-11 (9th Cir.1984). [F]ederal courts have no power to review federal personnel decisions and procedures unless such review is expressly authorized by Congress in the CSRA or elsewhere. Id. at 511. 6 The CSRA required Blue to present his allegations of prohibited personnel practices to the OSC. However, Blue did not present the allegations alleged in Counts II and III of his complaint to the OSC or the MSPB. 1 As the CSRA does not authorize judicial review of Blue's alleged violations of the VPA, even if those violations deprived Blue of property and procedural rights, see Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 839 (9th Cir.1991), we lack jurisdiction to review these claims. 7 Blue did file a written complaint with the OSC alleging that the Air Force violated certain parts of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). 2 The violations alleged in that complaint appear in Count IV of his complaint to the trial court. The OSC responded to Blue by letter on August 23, 1996, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claims. 8 Blue now argues that we have limited jurisdiction to review whether the OSC performed an adequate inquiry into his complaint. See Veit, 746 F.2d at 510-11 (stating that the system established by the CSRA provides review of prohibited personnel practices by the OSC with judicial scrutiny limited, at most, to insuring compliance with the statutory requirement that the OSC perform an adequate inquiry .... (citation omitted)). 3 However, if Blue wanted the district court or this court to determine whether the OSC adequately performed its function, he needed to make the OSC a party to the action. As he failed to do so, we are not in a position to exercise limited jurisdiction to determine whether the OSC performed an adequate inquiry into Blue's complaint. 9 Thus, the district court properly dismissed Counts II-IV for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.