Court Opinion

ID: 2963403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:14.129482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.090517
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 25, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1729                                  ROBERT J. HARVEY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                        UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Cornelius   J.  Sullivan  and  Sullivan  &  Walsh   on  brief  for
            ________________________       __________________        appellant.            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  David  S.   Mackey,
            _________________                              __________________        Assistant  United States  Attorney, and  Anne M.  Gallaudet, Attorney,
                                                 __________________        United States Postal Service, Law Department, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.     Plaintiff appeals the  dismissal of
                      __________            the  complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief            can  be granted.  The case grows out of plaintiff's discharge            from  the United  States Postal  Service.   He unsuccessfully            challenged his  discharge before the Merit Systems Protection            Board and  appealed to  the Federal Circuit,  which affirmed.            The  Supreme  Court  denied   his  petition  for  certiorari.            Plaintiff  now attempts  to  assert tort  claims for  damages            based on the same alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment,            privacy and due process  rights which he argued  before those            tribunals.   See generally Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
                         _____________ ______    ________________________            of  the  Fed.  Bureau  of Narcotics,  403  U.S.  388  (1971).
            ___________________________________            Defendants respond that the claims are preempted by the Civil            Service Reform Act  ("CSRA"), and barred by  res judicata and
                                                         ___ ________            the Federal Tort Claims Act.                      Applying  a  de novo  standard  of  review, we  are
                                   __ ____            skeptical  that   the  complaint  states   any  violation  of            plaintiff's   constitutional  rights.      Even  assuming   a            constitutional issue, however, the complaint does not present            a proper  case for a Bivens or state tort remedy.  The CSRA's
                                 ______            comprehensive  scheme is  designed to  provide the  exclusive            remedy for most government employee  complaints of prohibited            personnel practices.   Schweiker  v. Chilicky, 487  U.S. 412,
                                   _________     ________            423,  427-28 (1988);  Bush  v. Lucas,  462  U.S. 367,  387-88
                                  ____     _____            (1983).  The  exclusivity of the  remedy generally bars  both

            Bivens  claims as well as state  law claims for damages.  See
            ______                                                    ___            Roth  v. United States, 952 F.2d 611, 614-16 (1st Cir. 1991);
            ____     _____________            Saul  v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 835-43 (9th Cir. 1991);
            ____     _____________            Berrios v. Department of  Army, 884 F.2d 28, 30-32  (1st Cir.
            _______    ___________________            1989).                       Plaintiff  offers no  reasoned argument  or support            for his singular assertion that the CSRA's elaborate remedial            system  should not bar  this suit  because it  "sanctions the            wrongful  conduct  of  the  agency  and  allows  the  blatant            violation of Mr.  Harvey's rights."   Appellant's  Br. at  7.            Finding   no  substantial   question  presented  as   to  the            preemptive  effect of the CSRA,  we need not  reach the other            issues.   See Resare v. Raytheon Co., 981 F.2d 32, 44-45 n.30
                      ___ ______    ____________            (1st Cir.  1992) (a court of appeals is free to affirm on any            ground  supported in  the record  even if  the issue  was not            tried below).                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___                                         -3-