22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b5,MEMORANDUM Danny Lee Caesar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his military service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s federal claims because members of the armed forces may not file suit against the government for injuries incurred- during service. See Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) (Feres doctrine bars members of the armed forces from bringing “an action against the Government or armed services personnel for injuries during activity under the control or supervision of a commanding officer.” (internal citation omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s breach of contract claim because money damages are not an available remedy for the government’s breach of an enlistment contract. See Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1981). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4e7,

MEMORANDUM

Danny Lee Caesar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his military service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s federal claims because members of the armed forces may not file suit against the government for injuries incurred- during service. See Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) (Feres doctrine bars members of the armed forces from bringing “an action against the Government or armed services personnel for injuries during activity under the control or supervision of a commanding officer.” (internal citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s breach of contract claim because money damages are not an available remedy for the government’s breach of an enlistment contract. See Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.