Newton v. Lee
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8252
10th Cir.2012Background
- Newton, a civilian employee of the Utah Air National Guard, sued for due process violations after his ATCS certificate was withdrawn and his employment suspended.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the 14-day suspension claim but denied it on the withdrawal of the ATCS certificate, and held Feres and intramilitary immunity issues.
- This interlocutory appeal challenges the denial of intramilitary immunity and qualified immunity for the ATCS certificate claim, and Newton cross-appeals the employment suspension ruling.
- The Utah Test and Training Range is a major military testing area where the UANG provides air traffic services; an ATCS certificate authorizes specific control duties at designated facilities.
- Withdrawal of the ATCS certificate occurred after a National Guard Bureau review, with communications and evidence gaps that allegedly violated Air Force Instruction 13-203.
- Newton retired in 2006; after withdrawal and suspensions, he could not practice as an ATCS, affecting his career in civilian air traffic control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feres doctrine applicability to ATCS claim | Newton argues Feres does not bar civilian claims. | Defendants contend Feres extends to the incident-to-service framework and can bar such claims. | Feres does not bar Newton's civilian ATCS claim. |
| Jurisdiction to review intramilitary immunity denial | Appeal lies under collateral-order doctrine. | Collateral-order review is appropriate for intramilitary immunity questions. | We have jurisdiction to review the intramilitary immunity denial on collateral-order grounds. |
| Scope of review for denial of qualified immunity | District court properly denied qualified immunity based on disputed facts. | Qualified immunity should shield the officials if no clearly established rights were violated. | Interlocutory review of qualified-immunity denial is not available where material facts are disputed. |
| Newton's cross-appeal on employment suspension | District court erred by upholding procedures for indefinite suspension. | Immunity shields the reason for the suspension; procedures were adequate. | Pendent appellate jurisdiction not exercised; cross-appeal not adjudicated here. |
| Overall disposition of the case | District court erred in not recognizing Feres non-applicability to the ATCS claim. | Alternative grounds support dismissal of some claims; immunity analyses remain unresolved for post-appeal review. | Affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (incident-to-service doctrine governs service-related injuries)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (military discipline factors limit Bivens claims against officers)
- United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) (intramilitary immunity extends to protect military discipline)
- Ricks v. Nickels, 295 F.3d 1124 (2002) (examines application of Feres to service-related injuries and civilian status)
- Pringle v. United States, 208 F.3d 1220 (2000) (military duty status factors in applying Feres)
- Speigner v. Alexander, 248 F.3d 1292 (2001) (Feres applied to § 1983 context in some circuits)
- Jones v. N.Y. State Div. of Military & Naval Affairs, 166 F.3d 45 (1999) (Feres extends to § 1983 claims against state military officials in some circuits)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (Feres doctrine is neither all-encompassing nor perfectly tailored to contractors)