Dresser v. MEBA MEDICAL & BENEFITS PLAN, 628 F.3d 705

Dresser was a licensed marine engineer and faced an S&R action by the Coast Guard after testing positive for THC.
Dresser contends the positive test resulted from hemp seed oil, not marijuana.
ALJ Boggs revoked Dresser's license; Commandant affirmed the revocation.
NTSB remanded the case for a new hearing due to appearance of impropriety involving ALJ Brudzinski and others.
On remand, ALJ Brudzinski again ruled for the Coast Guard, revoking the license; Dresser pursued district court and appellate avenues.
District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that review should proceed via NTSB and the courts of appeals, not district court; APA claims were viewed as attempts to bypass the channeled review process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Coast Guard/NTSB scheme permits district-court review	Dresser seeks direct APA review in district court	Scheme requires NTSB review and appellate court review	No district-court review; appellate path required
Whether exhaustion of intra-agency review is mandatory	Exhaustion is optional under the APA	Exhaustion via NTSB is mandatory	Exhaustion mandatory; default APA rule inapplicable
Whether Bivens claims are separable from the administrative review	Bivens claims independent of S&R review	Claims are inescapably intertwined with the review of the Coast Guard decision	Bivens claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because intertwined with review of license revocation

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (exhaustion required for intra-agency appeals when mandated by statute or rule)
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (exhaustion not implied where statutory scheme provides judicial review)
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (statutory language governing review; jurisdictional considerations)
Ligon v. LaHood, 614 F.3d 150 (2010) (review of FAA order; district court precluded when appellate review available)