Court Opinion

ID: 2965333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:38:48.451364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:57.980752
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________

No. 97-2425

                                   
                         JOSE A. MATOS-ARROYO,

                         Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                  v.

                   EMILIO DIAZ-COLON, ETC., ET AL.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.

                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

         [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                        Torruella, Chief Judge,
                   Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

                         ____________________

    Raul S. Mariani Franco and Harry Anduze Montano on brief for
appellant.
    Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, Roxanna Badillo-Rodriguez,
Assistant Solicitor General, and Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy Solicitor
General, on brief for appellees.

                         ____________________
April 24, 1998                    

                         ____________________

      Per Curiam.  Jose A. Matos-Arroyo appeals from the
    district court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), of
    his complaint challenging his separation from the Puerto Rico
    National Guard.   We affirm, although on different grounds than
    those relied upon by the district court.
        "In the Rule 12(b)(6) milieu, an appellate court operates
    under the same constraints that bind the district court, that
    is, we may affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim only
    if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the
    plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.  Conley v
    Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-03, 2 L.Ed.2d 80
    (1957); [The] Dartmouth Review [v. Dartmouth College], 889 F.2d
    [13,] 16 [(1st Cir. 1989)].  In making that critical
    determination, we accept plaintiff's well-pleaded factual
    averments and indulge every reasonable inference hospitable to
    his case. Gooley, 851 F.2d at 514." Correa-Martinez v.
    Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1990).  "In
    conducting this tamisage, we are not wedded to the district
    court's rationale, but remain free to affirm the judgment below
    on any independently sufficient ground made manifest by the
    record."  Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201,
    204 (1st Cir. 1994).
        1. Claims for Monetary Relief
        Matos-Arroyo seeks damages for harm resulting from
    defendants' discharge of him in violation of his procedural due
    process rights under the United States Constitution.  Those
    claims are non-justiciable as the alleged injuries "'arise out
    of or are in the course of activity incident to service.'"
    Wright v. Park, 5 F.3d 586, 590 (1st Cir. 1993).  Because we
    have determined that the claims for damages are non-
    justiciable, we need not decide whether the district court
    erred in ruling that the Eleventh Amendment barred those
    claims.
        2. Claims for Injunctive Relief in the Form of
    Reinstatement
        Matos-Arroyo also seeks relief in the form of
    reinstatement to his military and civilian positions.  We need
    not decide whether the "bright line rule" adopted in Wright v.
    Park, 5 F.3d 586, 590 (1st Cir. 1993), applies to claims for
    injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement.  In
    Penagaricano v. Llenza, 747 F.2d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 1984), this
    court applied an analysis first stated by the Fifth Circuit in
    Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971), and found
    plaintiff's claims, including a claim for reinstatement in the
    National Guard, to be non-justiciable.
        Even if we were to apply the Mindes factors to the facts
    of this case, we would conclude, for essentially the same
    reasons given in Penagaricano, that the Mindes factors weigh in
    favor of finding that Matos-Arroyo's claims for injunctive
    relief are not justiciable.  See Penagaricano, 747 F.2d at 62
    (noting that plaintiff's procedural due process claim was
    "insubstantial" because plaintiff lacked "a constitutionally
    protected property interest in continued employment with the
    Guard").  As this court has recently stated,
        [t]he courts have long been reluctant to interfere
        with internal military decisionmaking, including
        personnel decisions.  With only rare exceptions, the
        courts have taken the view that assignments within
        the military structure are matters to be decided by
        the military and not be the courts.  The reasons are
        too obvious to need elaboration.
    
    Tirado-Acosta v. Puerto Rico National Guard, 118 F.3d 852, 855
    (1st Cir. 1997).
        The district court's Opinion and Order dated November 14,
    1997, is summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.