Seebach v. Cullen, 19145.

Decision Date06 November 1964
Docket NumberNo. 19145.,19145.
Citation338 F.2d 663
PartiesMary E. SEEBACH, Appellant, v. Joseph M. CULLEN, District Director, Bureau of Internal Revenue, et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Claude Dawson, Washington, D. C., Oliphant, Hopper & Stribling, Oakland, Cal., for appellant.

John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, John C. Eldridge, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, thereby upholding appellant's dismissal from her position with the Internal Revenue Service.

Judicial review of dismissal from federal employment, a matter of executive agency discretion, is limited to a determination of whether the required procedural steps have been substantially complied with. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774 (1900); and see Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 (1957), and cases there cited. Thus, the scope of our review is confined to questions of law, and a motion for summary judgment was an appropriate means of reaching and deciding the issues in the District Court.

In the institution of the removal proceedings here attacked, appellant was charged with (1) emotional instability and (2) inefficiency, eleven examples of emotional instability and thirteen examples of inefficiency being offered in support of the charges. Her removal was upheld in all the administrative review proceedings held prior to the filing of this action. The only error claimed by appellant with respect to her removal1 which we consider substantial is that the notice of removal failed to state specific findings as to the truth or falsity of each of the twenty-four examples of conduct alleged by her superiors to be illustrative of the reasons for her removal.

Appellant's removal was effected pursuant to the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 37 Stat. 555 (1912), 5 U.S.C. § 652(a) (1958), which permits removal from the classified civil service "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of such service and for reasons given in writing." The Act and the applicable regulations require that the notice of removal "clearly identify which of the reasons are relied upon in taking the adverse action." Appellant's complaint is simply that the reasons for her removal were not stated, as required.

We believe that appellant misunderstands the procedural requirements. She equates "reasons" with "examples" and contends that, since twenty-four examples of alleged conduct were offered in support of the charges filed against her, each example must be found to be proved or disproved and the findings stated in the removal notice. The examples, however, are in the nature of a bill of particulars and are not the ultimate reasons for the dismissal. The reasons for appellant's removal from the classified civil service were clearly stated in the notification of personnel action form:

"Reasons: Emotional Instability as evidenced by deep-seated feelings and resentments on
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Ponce v. Housing Authority of County of Tulare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • January 16, 1975
    ...of discretion by an officer, employee or agency of the United States. Seebach v. Cullen, 224 F.Supp. 15 (D.C.Cal. 1963) affirmed 338 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1964) cert. denied 380 U.S. 972, 85 S.Ct. 1331, 14 L.Ed.2d 268. But where the exercise or failure to exercise of a discretionary act violat......
  • Doe v. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 3, 1977
    ...performance is satisfactory. An unsatisfactory performance evaluation is generally not a prerequisite to removal. See Seebach v. Cullen, 338 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 972, 85 S.Ct. 1331, 14 L.Ed.2d 268 (1965); Angrisani v. United States, 172 Ct.Cl. 439 (1965). See......
  • International Fed. of P. & T. Eng., Loc. No. 1 v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • February 7, 1974
    ...the sovereign immunity of the United States in mandamus actions. Seebach v. Cullen, 224 F.Supp. 15 (N.D. Cal., 1963), affirmed 338 F.2d 663 (9th Cir., 1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 972, 85 S.Ct. 1331, 14 L.Ed.2d 268; Udall v. Oil Shale Corporation, 406 F.2d 759 (10th Cir., 1969), reversed on......
  • PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 31, 2018
    ...to carry out orders; disloyalty to his superiors and untruthfulness in official relations with other employees"); Seebach v. Cullen , 338 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1964) (upholding the dismissal of an IRS Auditor for "[i]nefficiency in handling tax cases as evidenced by technical and procedur......
  • 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