Frank Ford v. Victor Artiga
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Frank Gregory Ford appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), his action arising from his deployment in Iraq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2011) (Feres doctrine); Khalsa v. Weinberger, 779 F.2d 1393, 1395-96 (9th Cir. 1985) (claim involving a military decision), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ford’s constitutional and common law claims for monetary damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine because Ford alleges that he was an active duty service member of the California Army National Guard during the events that formed the basis of his action, and his claims arose incident to his active military service. See Feres, 340 U.S. at 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 (“[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”); Jackson, 648 F.3d at 733 (explaining scope and requirements of Feres doctrine).