Hale v. Villalpando, 3:22-cv-00024

Plaintiff Dylan Scott Hale, a military prisoner at the Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig, filed a pro se Bivens suit on January 5, 2022 against four Naval officers (former/current Executive Officers, former Commanding Officer, and Deputy Director of Operations).
Hale sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for alleged constitutional violations relating to conditions of confinement and disciplinary proceedings at the Brig.
Hale filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a Motion to Appoint Counsel.
The Court screened the complaint under the PLRA (28 U.S.C. § 1915A) and assessed subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Court concluded the claims arise out of activity incident to military service and are barred by the Feres doctrine, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
The action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the IFP and counsel motions were denied as moot and the case closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Hale's Bivens claims alleging constitutional violations at the Naval Brig	Hale asserts Bivens authorizes damages and injunctive relief for constitutional violations stemming from his confinement and disciplinary proceedings	Defendants invoke the Feres doctrine: suits by service members for matters incident to service are barred, so the court lacks jurisdiction	Court held Feres applies; dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
Whether Hale's motions for IFP status and appointment of counsel should be granted	Hale sought IFP and counsel to proceed with the case	Not reached on the merits after jurisdictional dismissal	Court denied both motions as moot

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (barred service members from suing the United States for injuries incident to military service)
Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (applied Feres to bar Bivens claims by enlisted personnel against superior officers)
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) (extended Feres/Chappell principles to activities incident to service beyond the officer/subordinate relationship)
Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1996) (applied Feres to bar military-related claims and confirmed lack of jurisdiction)