Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan

Decision Date22 December 2010
Docket NumberNo. 10-30301,10-30301
Citation628 F.3d 705
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
PartiesChristopher J. DRESSER, Plaintiff, v. MEBA MEDICAL & BENEFITS PLAN, Defendant. Christopher J. Dresser, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Coast Guard, Defendant-Appellee. Christopher J. Dresser, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph N. Ingolia; Kenneth V. Wilson; Alyssa L. Paladino, Defendants-Appellees.
628 F.3d 705

Christopher J. DRESSER, Plaintiff,
v.
MEBA MEDICAL & BENEFITS PLAN, Defendant.
Christopher J. Dresser, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
United States Coast Guard, Defendant-Appellee.
Christopher J. Dresser, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joseph N. Ingolia; Kenneth V. Wilson; Alyssa L. Paladino, Defendants-Appellees.


No. 10-30301.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.


Dec. 22, 2010.

628 F.3d 706

J. Mac Morgan (argued), Law Office of J. Mac Morgan, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Glenn Kenneth Schreiber (argued), Diane Hollenshead, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

628 F.3d 707

PER CURIAM:

I

Christopher J. Dresser was a licensed marine engineer. The United States Coast Guard initiated a Suspension and Revocation (S & R) action against Dresser's license after the Coast Guard was notified that Dresser had tested positive for tetrahyrdocannabinol (THC), a metabolite detected in the urine of those who have ingested marijuana. Dresser maintains that he tested positive as a result of his ingestion of hemp seed oil as a dietary supplement, not from the use of marijuana.

Following hearings in the S & R proceeding, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Boggs issued a Decision and Order finding that Dresser had used a dangerous drug, marijuana. The Decision also revoked Dresser's license. Dresser appealed the Decision to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, who affirmed. Dresser then appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), pursuant to that agency's authority to review Coast Guard S & R decisions. 1 The NTSB remanded the case for a new hearing because of the appearance of impropriety on ALJ Boggs's part,2 the nature of which is not at issue in this appeal.

Chief ALJ Ignolia assigned the remanded case to ALJ Brudzinski, who discussed the case with his docketing clerks, Wilson and Paladino, who are defendant-appellees in the present action. ALJ Brudzinski heard Dresser's case on remand and ruled in favor of the Coast Guard, again issuing a Decision revoking Dresser's license. Dresser then appealed the second Decision to the Coast Guard Commandant and simultaneously brought suit in the district court.

In that first suit, Dresser I, Dresser contended that ALJ Brudzinski's Decision revoking his license was "unconstitutional."3 The district court in Dresser I concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Dresser's request for judicial review of ALJ Brudzinski's Decision because the pending appeal before the Commandant meant the Decision was not a "final agency action" as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).4 In addition, the district court held that Dresser's Bivens5 claims were preempted by the administrative review framework.6 In an unpublished decision, this court affirmed the dismissal of Dresser's claims arising under the APA because the pending appeal to the Commandant meant that the ALJ's decision was not final.7 This court also held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Dresser's Bivens claims "because such claims were inescapably intertwined

628 F.3d 708
with a review of the procedure and merits surrounding" the Decision.8

After the district court's Dresser I order and before this court's decision in that case, the Coast Guard Commandant issued a ruling affirming ALJ Brudzinski's Decision.9 Dresser then filed new complaints in the district court, which contained the same allegations of unconstitutional action on the parts of defendant-appellants Ingolia, Wilson, Paladino, and the Coast Guard (together, Coast Guard). Dresser also filed a complaint against his union health and welfare benefit plan, MEBA Medical & Benefits Plan, because the plan refused to pay his fees and costs associated with the litigation in federal court. The district court consolidated these cases. Dresser and MEBA Medical & Benefits Plan reached a settlement before that consolidation, and that suit was dismissed.

The district court again dismissed Dresser's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the Coast Guard's contention that, to obtain judicial review, Dresser should have appealed the Commandant's decision to the NTSB and then to a federal circuit court. The district court concluded that Dresser's APA claims were an attempt to circumvent the channeled path for judicial review. The district court dismissed Dresser's Bivens claims as inescapably intertwined with his APA claims.

Dresser argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his APA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and his Bivens claims as inescapably intertwined with his claims regarding the revocation of his license. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.10 A district court's interpretation of a statute or regulation is a question of law that we review de novo.11

II

Dresser contends that the Commandant's decision to affirm the ALJ's Decision revoking his license was a final agency decision, reviewable under the APA. 12 Dresser argues that there is no statutorily specified means of obtaining judicial review of the Coast Guard's final decision; therefore, the APA's general provision that "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judicial review" applies, giving the federal district court jurisdiction over his claims.13 The Coast Guard contends that statutes and regulations pertaining to the Coast Guard and NTSB provide for an exclusive path of review, which may not be replaced by district court review of the Commandant's decision.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Coast Guard and NTSB statutory

628 F.3d 709
and regulatory scheme provide for judicial review, but only in a court of appeals, and only after an appeal to the NTSB. Dresser's argument does not take into account all of the language of APA § 10(c) and ignores the statutory provision for judicial review that precludes the APA's default rule of review in a federal district court. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Dresser's complaint.

A

To determine whether the APA's default rule of review is applicable, we look to the agency-specific statutes and rules.14 The Coast Guard, under the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Department),15 has authority to conduct S & R proceedings for mariner licenses.16 S & R proceedings are formal adjudicative proceedings governed by the APA and conducted by an ALJ.17 Unless the ALJ's decision is appealed, the "ALJ's decision becomes final action of the Coast Guard 30 days after the date of its issuance."18 An individual may appeal the suspension or revocation of his license to the Secretary of the Department within thirty days of the suspension or revocation.19 The regulations implementing this statute provide that "[a]ny party may appeal the ALJ's decision by filing a notice of appeal ... 30 days or less after issuance of the decision."20 The Coast Guard Commandant reviews the ALJ's decision "to determine whether the ALJ committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for further proceedings."21 The Commandant's decision in such an appeal "constitutes final action of the Coast Guard on the date of its issuance."22

The NTSB statutes and regulations provide for review of the Coast Guard's decision. Section 1133(3) of Title 49 requires that the NTSB "shall review on appeal ... a decision of the head of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating on an appeal from" an S & R decision. The implementing regulations "govern all proceedings before the [NTSB] on appeals taken from decisions ... of the Commandant [of the] U.S. Coast Guard[ ] sustaining orders of an administrative law judge[ ] revoking, suspending, or denying a license." 23 The regulations further provide that a party appealing the Commandant's decision must file a "notice of appeal with the [NTSB] within 10 days after service of the Commandant's decision upon the party or his designated attorney."24 That period

628 F.3d 710
may be extended "for good cause shown."25 The appellant's brief is then due to the NTSB within 20 days after the filing of the notice of appeal.26 The final level of review provided in this statutory and regulatory scheme is by the "appropriate court of appeals of the United States," which "may review a final order" of the NTSB made under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 11.27

B

Dresser argues that his appeal of the Commandant's decision to the NTSB is optional. Accordingly, he contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Darby v. Cisneros prevents the district court from requiring him to pursue that appeal. He reasons that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction over his complaint under the default review provision of the APA. In Darby, the Court held that APA § 10(c) explicitly requires exhaustion of all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Belle Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 30 Julio 2014
    ...permit decision based on that jurisdiction, would disrupt the regulatory review system already in place. See Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan, 628 F.3d 705, 708 (5th Cir.2010) (“To determine whether the APA's default rule of review is applicable, we look to the agency-specific statutes ......
  • Bank Of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 17-30044
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 28 Marzo 2019
    ...to restrict the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal district courts based on a wide variety of factors"); Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan, 628 F.3d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court properly dismissed lawsuit as "an attempt to circumvent the channeled path for judicial review......
  • Villarreal v. Horn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 29 Julio 2016
    ...whether there is no other adequate remedy in a court under § 704 is a jurisdictional question, see, e.g. , Dresser v. Meba Ed. & Benefits Plan , 628 F.3d 705, 712 (5th Cir.2010) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of APA claim because plaintiff had adequate remedy).......
  • Valerio v. Limon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 6 Abril 2021
    ...judicial administration where the agency action has already become "final" under § 10(c)." Id.3 See also Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan , 628 F.3d 705, 710–11 (5th Cir. 2010) (same); Sharkey v. Quarantillo , 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Menendez , 48 F.3d 1401, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT