Court Opinion

ID: 2964986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:48.799078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:02.599227
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1677

                            VICTOR QUINONEZ-CRUZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                              EMILIO DIAZ-COLON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo on brief for appellant.
            _____________________
            Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor  General, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy
            ________________                      ____________________
        Solicitor  General, and Gustavo  A. Gelpi,  Assistant to  the Attorney
                                _________________
        General,  Department of  Justice, on brief  for appellee  Emilio Diaz-
        Colon.
            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano  Del
            _____________                              _______________________
        Rio, Assistant United  States Attorney, on  brief for appellee  United
        ___
        States of America.

                                 ____________________

                                   November 4, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Victor Quinonez-Cruz  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.   "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); Dartmouth
                                                                _________

            Review,  889   F.2d  at   16.     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).
            __________________

                 I. Civil Rights Claims
                    ___________________

                 For the reasons stated  by the district court, we  agree

            that  under Wright  v.  Park,  5 F.3d  587  (1st Cir.  1993),
                        ______      ____

            Quinonez's    civil   rights    claims   for    damages   are

            nonjusticiable.   Quinonez argues  on appeal that  Chapell v.
                                                               _______

            Wallace, 462 U.S.  296 (1983) and  United States v.  Stanley,
            _______                            _____________     _______

            483 U.S. 669 (1987), do  not require dismissal of his damages

            claims because those claims primarily concern his status as a

            civilian National Guard technician.  We specifically rejected

            an  identical  argument  in  Wright,  where  we held  that  a
                                         ______

                                         -2-

            National Guard  technician's civilian and military  roles are

            "inextricably intertwined."  Wright, 5 F.3d at 589.
                                         ______

                 Quinonez contends  that  even if  Wright  precludes  his
                                                   ______

            damages  claims, the district  court erred in  dismissing his

            claims for injunctive relief.  Because Wright did not involve
                                                   ______

            a claim for  injunctive relief, this court has  not yet ruled

            on  whether Chappell and  Stanley bar  such relief.   Several
                        ________      _______

            other circuits  have ruled that there is no injunctive relief

            exception to Chappell, however.  See Knutson v. Wisconsin Air
                         ________            ___ _______    _____________

            National Guard, 995 F.2d 765,  771 (7th Cir. 1993); Watson v.
            ______________                                      ______

            Arkansas National Guard, 886 F.2d 1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 1989);
            _______________________

            Crawford v. Texas Army National Guard, et al., 794 F.2d 1034,
            ________    _________________________________

            1036-37 (5th  Cir. 1986);  but see  Jorden v.  National Guard
                                       ___ ___  ______     ______________

            Bureau, 799 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that Chappell did
            ______                                           ________

            not  bar  1983 claim  for reinstatement and  determining that

            under  the Third Circuit's "own jurisprudence," the claim was

            justiciable).

                 As  we recently stated in another context, "[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  by the courts. . . .   [T]he

            underlying  notion is that  matters of military organization,

            personnel  and operations  are  extremely sensitive  and that

                                         -3-

            courts will do more harm  than good by interfering."  Tirado-
                                                                  _______

            Acosta v. Puerto Rico National  Guard, 118 F.3d 852, 855 (1st
            ______    ___________________________

            Cir.  1997).   As a  result, we  decline to  entertain claims

            seeking  reinstatement as a form of injunctive relief because

            such a remedy  would "intrude on a province  committed to the

            military's discretion."  Knutson, 995 F.2d at 771.
                                     _______

                 Appellants  argue  that  we  should  take  the  approach

            followed in Penagaricano v. Llenza, 747 F.2d 55, 59 (1st Cir.
                        ____________    ______

            1984), which was overruled in part by Wright, 5 F.3d  at 591.
                                                  ______

            Even  were we to  do so, the  result would be the  same.  The

            civil  rights claims that  we dismissed as  nonjusticiable in

            Penagaricano,  including  a  claim  for  reinstatement,  were
            ____________

            strikingly  similar to  Quinonez's claims.    Mindful of  the

            concerns  expressed  in  Chappell,  this  court  applied  the
                                     ________

            analysis set  forth in  Mindes v. Seaman,  453 F.2d  197 (5th
                                    ______    ______

            Cir. 1971), weighing the last two Mindes factors heavily, and
                                              ______

            concluded   that   Penagaricano's    claims   constituted   a

            nonjusticiable military controversy.   Penagaricano, 747 F.2d
                                                   ____________

            at  64.   We would  do  the same  in this  case.   Therefore,

            whether  judged under  Wright or  Penagaricano,  the district
                                   ______     ____________

            court's dismissal  of Quinonez's claim for  injunctive relief

            was correct.

                 II. Title VII Claim
                     _______________

                 Quinonez appeals from the district court's  dismissal of

            his Title VII  claims.  Title VII prohibits  an employer from

                                         -4-

            discriminating  against   any  individual  because   of  that

            person's "race, color, religion, sex or national origin."  42

            U.S.C.   2000e-2(a).    Quinonez's   complaint  alleges  that

            defendants discriminated against  him because of his  age and

            political  beliefs.   Therefore, Quinonez  has  not stated  a

            claim for relief under Title VII.

                 Even  if Quinonez had relied upon the Age Discrimination

            in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.   621 et seq., he would

            not be entitled to relief.  See Johnson v. State of New York,
                                        ___ _______    _________________

            49 F.3d 75,  78 (2d Cir. 1995)  (conduct of the  Air National

            Guard "is beyond  the reach of the  ADEA"); Frey v. State  of
                                                        ____    _________

            California, 982 F.2d 399, 404 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Congress  did
            __________

            not intend to extend the protections of Title VII or the ADEA

            to members of the state National Guard"); Costner v. Oklahoma
                                                      _______    ________

            Army National Guard,  833 F.2d 905,  907-08 (10th Cir.  1987)
            ___________________

            (ADEA   claim  by  member  of  National  Guard  and  civilian

            technician  was nonreviewable under Mindes); Helm v. State of
                                                ______   ____    ________

            California, 722 F.2d 507, 509  (9th Cir. 1983) (ADEA does not
            __________

            apply to military reservists).  Therefore, the district court

            correctly ruled  that Quinonez  failed to  state a  statutory

            claim of employment discrimination under federal law.

                 The  district court  judgment dismissing  with prejudice

            appellants'  federal   law  claims  and   dismissing  without

            prejudice the Puerto Rico law  claims, is affirmed.  See Loc.
                                                      ________   ___

            R. 27.1.

                                         -5-