Wilson v. James, Civil No. 13–cv–01351 (APM)

Decision Date13 October 2015
Docket NumberCivil No. 13–cv–01351 (APM)
Citation139 F.Supp.3d 410
Parties Layne Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

John B. Wells, Law Offices of John B. Wells, Slidell, LA, for Plaintiff.

Marina Utgoff Braswell, Jane M. Lyons, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.


AMIT P. MEHTA, District Judge


On December 2, 2012, Plaintiff Layne Wilson, an enlisted member of the Utah Air National Guard, sent an email, using his military email account, to an official at the United States Military Academy at West Point objecting to a same-sex wedding held at the military academy's chapel. Plaintiff's Commanding Officer, Defendant Lt. Colonel Kevin Tobias, learned about the email and disciplined Plaintiff for it—first, rescinding his six-year reenlistment contract and offering in its place a one-year contract that Plaintiff later signed; and second, issuing Plaintiff a Letter of Reprimand. After Plaintiff challenged these disciplinary actions, Lt. Colonel Tobias acknowledged error in rescinding the six-year contract and reinstated it, but concluded that the Letter of Reprimand would remain. The next day, apparently dissatisfied with this outcome, Plaintiff posted on his Facebook page the following disparaging remarks about Lt. Colonel Tobias: "You embarrass me, our country, and our unit!!! ... You are part [of] the problem with this country." That Facebook post, along with other such postings, instigated a second round of discipline, which included another Letter of Reprimand, the opening of a Security Information File, and the suspension of Plaintiff's security clearance.

Believing that the various forms of discipline imposed violated his constitutionally and statutorily protected rights, Plaintiff brought this suit asserting a bevy of claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and Fifth Amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Privacy Act. Defendants Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, Lt. General Stanley E. Clarke, Brigadier General Jefferson Burton, and Lt. Colonel Tobias2 counter, generally, that their actions were lawful, reasonable, and appropriate responses to a series of insubordinate acts.

The manner in which Plaintiff has pled and argued his claims has presented serious challenges to the court. Throughout his Complaint and in subsequent briefing, Plaintiff indiscriminately connects various theories of liability—predicated on the Constitution, statutes, and military regulations—with the different disciplinary actions taken against him, creating a thicket of allegations and claims that are often difficult to discern. In his Complaint, for example, Plaintiff does not clearly identify claims; nor does he concisely link his claims to the specific disciplinary actions he challenges. His briefs are similarly abstruse. They treat each form of imposed discipline as an opportunity to raise multifarious arguments challenging the action's validity. The court has done its best to untangle Plaintiff's inartful pleadings and briefs.

Before the court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. After considering the parties' arguments and the evidence presented, the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment in its entirety and denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

A. The Email to West Point and Resulting Discipline

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS"), Wilson Aff., ECF No. 17–3, ¶ 3, and an enlisted member of the Utah Air National Guard ("UTANG"), Defs.' Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 14, ¶¶ 1–2 [hereinafter Defs.' SOF]; Pl.'s Counter Statement of Facts, ECF No. 17–2, ¶¶ 1–2 [hereinafter Pl.'s Counter SOF].

On November 3, 2012, Plaintiff signed a six-year reenlistment contract with both the UTANG and the Federal Air Force Reserve. Administrative R., ECF No. 7– 1, at 27–33 [hereinafter AR].3 On an unspecified prior date, Plaintiff had used his military email account to send "abusive and threatening emails" to his medical insurer, TriCare, about a coverage dispute concerning his wife's cancer treatment. Defs.' SOF ¶ 3; but see Pl.'s Counter SOF ¶ 3 (denying that Plaintiff's emails to TriCare were "abusive or threatening"). In response, when Plaintiff signed his reenlistment contract, his superior, Defendant Lt. Colonel Tobias "verbally counseled [P]laintiff on his improper use of government email[.]" Defs.' SOF ¶ 3; see also AR at 46 (November 19, 2012, email from Tobias to TriCare employee in which Tobias writes, "I talked with Layne on 3 Nov 2012 and I've asked him to stop the inappropriate emails and to tone down his responses to your staff").

One month later, on December 2, 2012, Plaintiff sent an email, using his military account, to Major Jeffery Higgins, whom he believed to be a chaplain at the United States Military Academy at West Point (the "Email"). See Pl.'s Counter SOF ¶ 4. The Email's subject line was: "Homosexuality weddings at military institutions." AR at 48. It read as follows:

I just read an article that a homosexual wedding was performed at the Cadet Chapel at West Point. I need to let you [know], that this is wrong on so many levels. If they wanted to get married in a hotel, that is one thing. Our base chapels are a place of worship and this [is] a mockery to God and our military core values. I have proudly served for 27 years and this is a slap in the face to us who have put our lives on the line for this country. I hope sir that you will take appropriate action so this does not happen again.


At the time he received the Email, Major Higgins was serving as the Executive Assistant to the Commandant of Cadets at West Point. Pl.'s Counter SOF ¶ 4. Brigadier General Ted Martin, West Point's Commandant of Cadets, received the Email and forwarded it to Brigadier General David Fountain, Utah's Assistant Adjutant General for Air and the highest-ranking officer in the UTANG, along with the following message:

I am writing to send you a message I received from one of your Airmen, TSGT L.E. Wilson, who apparently doesn't like the idea of two gay individuals getting married at an on-post facility (in this case, the Cadet Chapel at West Point). I am not sure why he wrote me—maybe he thinks I care about his opinion (which I don't), or that I am responsible for the policy (which I am not), or that I control the facility (which I don't), but in any event I believe he may have some problems with the lifting of "don't ask, don't tell" and thought that you or his immediate commander might want to further investigate. If I did control all of the above, he should know that I still don't care about his opinions, and that I am flabbergasted that he would think it is OK to question any of my orders or policies. I will just hit the delete key on his message and go about my business.
The funny thing about email is that anyone can hit the send key and totally bypass the chain of command. It is bad enough when a civilian does it, but doubly disappointing when someone in the military does it. I guess it is just a sign of the times. I am sure you are busy and have about as much time for this kind of nonsense as I do—which is "zero"!

AR at 47–48. Brigadier General Fountain forwarded General Martin's email to Brigadier General Kenneth Gammon, who in turn forwarded the email to Tobias. Id. at 47.

Three days after Plaintiff sent the Email, on December 5, 2012, UTANG officials decided to rescind Plaintiff's six-year reenlistment contract and offer in its place a one-year reenlistment contract. Id. at 42; Defs.' SOF ¶ 8. On December 12, 2012, Tobias met with Plaintiff to discuss the status of his reenlistment contract, the Email, and related matters. Tobias' notes reflect that, at the meeting, he and Plaintiff discussed a June 2011 "Don't Ask Don't Tell Training," about which Plaintiff "comment[ed] ... how strongly he disagreed with it at that time and how he feels the same way today." AR at 43. Tobias' notes reflect that they also discussed: (1) Plaintiff's "[p]ossible loss of a stripe" and that "at a minimum he'll be getting a [Letter of Reprimand]"; (2) Plaintiff's retirement, which Tobias "encouraged" him to begin in March or April 2013, "thus allowing him to retire with a clean slate"; Plaintiff, however, stated that he "[w]ants to stay in for at least three more years," at least in part because "TriCare is critical to his wife's cancer" treatment; and (3) termination of Plaintiff's UTANG email account and internet access, which Tobias told Plaintiff should occur immediately, but Tobias decided to "hold for now" because Plaintiff would need his account to make "retirement requests." Id. Tobias noted that Plaintiff "seemed very adamant that what he did was not wrong [and that] he felt that his rights were being taken from him." Id. In response, Tobias explained that "we as military members must live under tighter rules/guidelines to have a strong force" and told Plaintiff that "he was basically ordered to not have that opinion in uniform and that he basically disobeyed this order." Id. Tobias told Plaintiff that if he "feels so strongly about it maybe it's a good time for him to move on." Id.

On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff signed the one-year reenlistment contract. Id. at 45. Before signing the contract, Plaintiff informed Tobias that his healthcare coverage had ceased when his six-year reenlistment contract was rescinded. Id. at 44. Plaintiff also acknowledged his missteps: "My National Guard military benefits are being taken away over a human error on my part.... I didn't intend to create this red tape mess for you. Again, I'm sincerely sorry I created this situation and ask for your forgiveness. I wish[ ] I could undo the past [two] months, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 29 Abril 2022
    ... ... Civil Action No. 22-0688 (CKK) United States District Court, ... (James 4:17)[.] If I fail to submit to the personal convictions ... Wilson v. James , 139 F. Supp. 3d 410, 424 (D.D.C. 2014) (APM); ... ...
  • McKoy v. Spencer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 21 Septiembre 2017
    ... ... Honorable Richard V. SPENCER, 1 Defendant Civil Action No. 161313 (CKK) United States District Court, ... , discharges, and disciplineto be nonjusticiable." Wilson v. James , 139 F.Supp.3d 410, 431 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd , ... ...
  • Cillie v. McCarthy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 21 Agosto 2020
    ... ... dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction ... 1552]." Id .; see also Wilson v ... James , 139 F. Supp. 3d 410, 433 (D.D.C. 2015) ... ...
  • United States v. Sterling
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals, Armed Forces Court of Appeals
    • 10 Agosto 2016
    ... ... Nebraska, Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina, ... Ken Paxton, ... work. See Wilson v. James , 139 F.Supp.3d 410, 424-25 ... (D.D.C. 2015). Nor ... See, e.g. , Singh v ... Carter , Civil Action No. 16-399 (BAH), 2016 U.S. Dist ... LEXIS ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Born-Again RFRA: Will the Military Backslide on its Religious Conversion?
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 No. 2, March 2022
    • 22 Marzo 2022
    ...any religious action or practice so as to violate his rights under the Constitution or [RFRA]."). (278) See id. (279) Wilson v. James, 139 F. Supp. 3d 410, 418 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd, No. 15-5338, 2016 WL 3043746 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2016); see also Obergefell v. Hodges, 576. U.S. 644 (2015) (s......

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