Anderson v. Gates, 20 F. Supp. 3d 114

Anderson, a pro se journalist, sought to be embedded in Afghanistan under ISAF MAGRA and signed the MAGRA agreeing to Media Ground Rules.
Anderson embedded with the Minnesota Army National Guard; video of wounded soldiers led to termination of embed status.
Defendants argued termination violated Media Ground Rules by disseminating images of identifiable wounded personnel.
Anderson met Colonel Bush who accused him of violating rules and issued a termination memorandum; Anderson appealed, and Colonel Julian upheld the decision.
Anderson filed a three-count complaint alleging §1983/First and Fifth Amendment claims, breach of contract, and a request for declaratory and injunctive relief; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1),(2),(5),(6).
Court held lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants in their individual capacities (insufficient service); nonetheless analyzed merits, dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1983 claims can lie against federal officials	Anderson asserts constitutional violations by federal officers in their individual capacities.	§1983 requires state action; federal defendants are not proper under §1983.	Claims dismissed; §1983 not available against federal officials.
Whether Bivens claims against individual federal officials survive	Anderson claims violations of First and Fifth Amendments by those who terminated embed status.	Officials are entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established right to be embedded.	Bivens claims fail; no clearly established right to embed; qualified immunity applies.
Whether former Secretary Gates and McHugh can be liable	Anderson names them as authorities over military-media rules.	No personal participation alleged; supervisor liability does not establish direct liability; arguments concede.	Dismissed for failure to allege personal participation under Bivens.
Whether the breach of contract claim falls within Tucker Acts jurisdiction	MAGRA constitutes a contract with the U.S. Army and damages are sought.	Tucker Act/Little Tucker Act only allow monetary damages; here only equitable relief requested; no jurisdiction.	Count II dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; equitable relief not within Tucker Acts.

Flynt v. Rumsfeld, 355 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (First Amendment does not guarantee right to embedded reporting with military units)
Simpkins v. Dist. of Columbia Gov't, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (dismissal if prosecutorial defect in service would be futile to refile)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§1983 requires state action; federal defendants not liable under §1983)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content supporting plausible claim; not mere conclusory statements)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step framework for qualified immunity; prongs can be addressed in any order)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may use discretion to address prongs of qualified-immunity analysis)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (S. Ct. 2012) (qualified-immunity analysis requires clearly established right)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (supervisor liability and Monell-like analysis for official-capacity claims)
Richardson v. Morris, 409 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1973) (sovereign immunity and court jurisdiction principles in Tucker Act context)
Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.D.C. 1987) (court may consider substance beyond complaint to determine jurisdiction)
Graham v. United States, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (sovereign immunity and jurisdictional limits for contract claims)