Court Opinion

ID: 9388577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 23:00:26.399671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.115838
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDIE THOMAS,                                   No. 21-56014

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01601-AJB-DEB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the
Navy; NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER SAN
DIEGO; LEAGAIOALII C. MAPU; LUCAS
R. BERGER; CARMEN L. MUTUC;
MARGARITA D. YOUNG; MICHAEL
MASON; CHRISTINE BARRY; MARIO
VILLALBA; CHAD L. COOK; EDRION
GAWARAN,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                  Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Rudie Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”)

action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doğan

v. Barak, 932 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Thomas failed to establish that he exhausted

administrative remedies as required by the WPA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221(a);

5 C.F.R. § 1209.2; Kerr v. Jewell, 836 F.3d 1048, 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016)

(explaining that WPA claims must be presented initially to either the Office of

Special Counsel (“OSC”) or the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”); if an

employee files initially with the OSC, an adverse decision must first be appealed to

the MSPB).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   21-56014