Hrdlicka v. Del Toro
| Docket Number | Civil Action RDB-22-2299 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2023 |
| Parties | GRANT HRDLICKA, Plaintiff. v. CARLOS DEL TORO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Grant Hrdlicka (“Plaintiff” or “Hrdlicka”) is a 22-year-old enlisted sailor who applied for admission to the United States Naval Academy (“Naval Academy”) in Annapolis, Maryland. Ultimately, as part of his application process, he attended the Naval Academy Preparatory School (“NAPS”) located on Naval Station Newport in Newport, Rhode Island. The NAPS program is a ten-month college preparatory training program offered to enlisted personnel seeking Naval Academy appointment.[1] The undisputed facts in this case establish that during his attendance at NAPS, Hrdlicka violated the NAPS Conduct Manual by bringing alcohol into a residence hall and serving it to underage service members one of whom became ill. Ultimately, in addition to the military discipline imposed, Hrdlicka was disenrolled from the NAPS program and reassigned to his previous duties as an enlisted sailor. As a result, Hrdlicka filed the subject Complaint against the Defendant Carlos Del Toro, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy, and the Defendant Vice Admiral Sean S. Buck, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Naval Academy.
Presently pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24).[2] Plaintiff has opposed the Motion, (ECF No 27), and Defendants have replied. (ECF No. 34.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and a hearing was conducted in this matter on the record on June 20, 2023. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021).
For the reasons set forth on the record and as follows, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24), construed as a Motion to Dismiss, is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Quite simply, the Plaintiff challenges the disenrollment decision, which is a nonjusticiable military decision. The clear precedent of the decisions of this Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit compels the dismissal of this action.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Wikimedia Found. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)). Except where otherwise indicated, the following facts are derived from Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), and accepted as true for the purpose of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff Grant Hrdlicka enlisted in the Navy on May 21, 2019. (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4, ECF No. 24-1; Ex. 3 24, ECF No. 10-3.) Hrdlicka arrived at NAPS in July 2021. (ECF No. 24-1 at 5.) At the time of the April 2022 incident that led to his disenrollment, he was twenty-one years old. (Id.)
On the evening of Saturday, April 2, 2022, Hrdlicka and three other NAPS midshipman candidates convened in a NAPS residence hall to watch a Final Four basketball game. (Compl. ¶ 28, ECF No. 1.) At some point that evening, Hrdlicka purchased and provided alcohol to underage service members in a NAPS residence hall. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.) One of the underage service members consumed alcohol to the point of becoming ill. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Both Hrdlicka and the aforementioned underage service member self-reported the incident on Monday, April 4, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 30; Ex. 1 9, ECF No. 11-1 *SEALED*.)
That same day, Commanding Officer (“CO”) Captain J. D. Bahr (“Captain Bahr”) designated a United States Marine Corps (“USMC”) Captain to conduct an inquiry into the incident under JAGINST 5800.7G. (ECF No. 11-1 at 5 *SEALED*.) On April 9, 2022, Hrdlicka was informed of his rights under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”), which included the right to remain silent and the right to consult with legal counsel prior to any questioning. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 31; ECF No. 11-1 at 7 *SEALED*.) Hrdlicka declined to be interviewed, as was his right, “indicat[ing] that he might consult with counsel before providing such a statement,” as was also his right. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 31; ECF No. 11 at 9 *SEALED*.) Hrdlicka alleges that after he announced his intention to exercise these rights, verbal comments were made to him that made him feel “completely intimidated” and “coerced” into “sign[ing] his right to consult with counsel away.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 32-36.)
At the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the USMC Captain made a number of recommendations, (ECF No. 11-1 at 1-15 *SEALED*), including that Hrdlicka be adjudicated at the CO level for violating Articles 0102, 0501, and 0503 of the NAPS Conduct System; that Captain's Mast should be considered due to the fact that Hrdlicka was a prior enlisted Sailor; and that Hrdlicka should be charged with violating Article 92 under the UCMJ. (Id. at 4.)
On April 12, 2022, Hrdlicka was notified of these recommendations and two charges against him. (ECF No. 10-3 at 24.) Specifically, he was charged with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134. (Id. at 1-28; ECF No. 1 at ¶ 33.) Hrdlicka met with a NAPS Legal Officer on April 13, 2022 and April 14, 2022, and during those meetings, Hrdlicka was provided information about his rights. (ECF No. 10-3 at 4-13.) On both occasions, Hrdlicka acknowledged these rights in writing. (Id.)
After Plaintiff waived his right to a trial by Court Martial under the UCMJ, (id. at 25), a Captain's Mast Non-Judicial Punishment (“NJP”) Adjudication Hearing was held on April 15, 2022. (Id.) Hrdlicka submitted a written statement in which he admitted to the conduct charged and explained why “he had [] considered [consulting with counsel] in the first instance.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35; ECF No. 10-3 at 14-15.) The CO-Captain Bahr-found Hrdlicka guilty on both charges and imposed 60 days' restriction, 60 days' loss of privileges, one reduction in rank, and half pay for 60 days. (ECF No. 10-3 at 3.) Captain Bahr also noted that Hrdlicka should be recommended for disenrollment from NAPS. (Id.) Plaintiff was “advised that [he] ha[d] the right to appeal this punishment to the General Court Martial Convening Authority” “within a reasonable time, which is normally 5 days.” (Id. at 3, 26.) Importantly, Hrdlicka did not appeal the NJP. (ECF No. 24-1 at 7.)
On April 19, 2022, Hrdlicka was notified of the CO's recommendation for involuntary disenrollment, based on “deficient conduct performance.” (ECF No. 10-1 at 11; ECF No. 1 at ¶ 37.) He immediately indicated his intent to appeal the involuntary disenrollment recommendation. (Id.)
On April 25, 2022, Hrdlicka submitted an appeal of the recommendation for involuntary disenrollment addressed to the Superintendent of the Naval Academy- Defendant Vice Admiral Sean S. Buck. (ECF No. 10-1 at 3-10; ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 39, 52.) On April 26, 2022, the Superintendent denied Plaintiff's appeal and approved his disenrollment based on the “deficient conduct performance as evidenced by your non-judicial punishment of 15 April 2022.” (ECF No. 10-4 at 1-2; ECF No. 1 at ¶ 52.)
On September 12, 2022, Hrdlicka initiated this action. (ECF No. 1.) On February 15, 2023, Defendants filed the presently pending Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion, (ECF No. 27), and Defendants replied. (ECF No. 34.) A hearing was conducted in this matter on the record on June 20, 2023. This Motion is ripe for review.
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 24.). Specifically, Defendants request the entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; or under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Defendants further aver that even if Plaintiff had stated a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Hrdlicka cannot establish that the well-reasoned decision of the Superintendent to disenroll him was arbitrary and capricious. As noted above, this Court will construe Defendant's Motion as a Motion to Dismiss, and because Defendants' motion will be granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court need only address the standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenges a court's authority to hear the matter brought by a complaint. See Davis v. Thompson, 367 F.Supp.2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005). A challenge to jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed either as a facial challenge, asserting that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, or a factual challenge, asserting “that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint [are] not true.” Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In a facial challenge, a court will grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “where a claim fails to allege facts upon which the court may base jurisdiction.” Davis, 367 F.Supp.2d at 799. Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims are non-justiciable, even accepting all of the factual allegations in Hrdlicka's Complaint.
Defendants argue that the present controversy is...
To continue reading
Request your trial