Mark Munns v. John F. Kerry
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Three American private security contractors (Joshua Munns, John Young, John Cote) working for Crescent Security were kidnapped in Iraq in 2006 and later killed; plaintiffs are their family members and a former coworker (Bjorlin).
- Plaintiffs alleged that Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17 and U.S. State Department hostage-response policies fostered lawless contractor behavior and impeded private efforts to secure hostages, contributing to the deaths.
- Bjorlin seeks prospective declarations/injunctions challenging CPA Order 17 (and similar policies) because he may return to work as a contractor in Iraq; family members challenge State Department restrictions on private negotiation/communications with captors and seek injunctive relief and withheld monetary benefits.
- Family plaintiffs also allege withheld back pay and life insurance proceeds from Crescent and claim entitlement to federal benefits (LHWCA/DBA/WHCA); they sued federal officials for money damages under due process and takings theories.
- The district court dismissed all claims: equitable claims for lack of standing and political-question, monetary claims for lack of sovereign-immunity waiver and failure to state a takings claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- Ninth Circuit: affirmed dismissal of equitable claims and federal-benefits claims for lack of jurisdiction; vacated dismissal of due process and takings claims and directed transfer of those monetary claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek prospective declaratory/injunctive relief re: CPA Order 17 | Bjorlin: fears reinstatement of Order 17 or similar policy; deterrence from contracting constitutes injury | Government: Order 17 is no longer in effect; any future injury is speculative/attenuated | No standing — plaintiffs failed to show a certainly impending or substantial risk of future injury; equitable claims dismissed |
| Standing to seek prospective relief re: hostage-response policies (family members) | Families: past First Amendment interference (blocked meetings/flyer distribution) supports injunction against future application | Government: any future application is speculative; past exposure alone doesn’t permit prospective relief | No standing — past harms do not establish a likelihood of future injury; equitable claims dismissed |
| District court jurisdiction over monetary claims (sovereign immunity waiver) | Families: FTCA or other statutes waive sovereign immunity for withheld back pay/insurance and federal benefits | Government: plaintiffs did not exhaust FTCA administrative remedies; other statutes do not waive sovereign immunity for damages; benefits claims must go through administrative process | District court lacks jurisdiction — FTCA exhaustion absent; federal benefits claims belong to administrative process; due process/takings claims fall under Tucker Act jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims |
| Transfer of due process and takings claims | Families: ask transfer to Court of Federal Claims if district court lacks jurisdiction | Government: argues Court of Federal Claims lacks money‑mandating basis for some claims | Transfer ordered — Court of Federal Claims could have had jurisdiction; in interest of justice, district court must sever and transfer due process and takings claims under § 1631 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (speculative future injuries and chill-based standing limitations)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (speculative risk of recurrence insufficient for injunction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity requires unequivocal statutory waiver)
- Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits dismissal is nullity if court lacks jurisdiction)
- McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act places certain constitutional monetary claims in Court of Federal Claims)