Chandrama Mishra v. Samuel S. Startton Va Medical Center; U.s. Department of Veterans Affairs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANDRAMA MISHRA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL
CENTER; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35719
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00561-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related
to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
FILED
JUL 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v.
United States, 529 F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mishra’s action because it is precluded
by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See id. at 1247-48 (CSRA limits
federal employees challenging “prohibited personnel practices,” defined as any
“personnel action” taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial
system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.
1991) (broadly construing the definition of “personnel action”).
The district court properly denied Mishra’s motion for default judgment
because defendants filed a timely response to his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)
(setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
13-35719 2

-- 2 of 2 --