Flowers

Flowers v. United States Army, 25th Infantry Division

Good Law
179 F. App'x 986
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 3, 2006No. 04-16153California1,194 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Husband and wife Marshall and Anna Flowers appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their claims against the United States Army and the individual Army defendants (“federal defendants”), and grant of summary judgment in favor of Fort Jackson Federal Credit Union and First Hawaiian Bank. The Flowers also challenge various discovery and other procedural rulings made by the district court. We affirm the challenged rulings and deny the Flowers’ two pending motions.

1. The Flowers argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims brought pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq., against the federal defendants. The district court based its dismissal on the doctrine enunciated in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), which held that service members cannot sue the government for injuries that “arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” We must determine whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Flowers’ RFPA claims against the federal defendants. See Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847 (9th *988 Cir.1996) (“A…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.