Daniels v. Department of the United States Navy

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice and denying as moot Plaintiffs Motions to Seal [4, 5] and Motion to Speak to Judge Story 6 . Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 4/23/14. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LISA DORNELL DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES NAVY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:14-CV-00611-RWS

ORDER
On March 3, 2014, Magistrate Judge Janet F. King granted Plaintiff Lisa
Dornell Daniels leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The case was
then referred to the undersigned for a frivolity determination. After reviewing
the record, the Court enters the following Order.
Background
In her Complaint [3], Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to unfair
treatment at the North Little Rock, Arkansas Naval Operation Service Center.1
1

Plaintiff filed a separate suit on the same day against the Department of
Veterans Affairs. See No. 1:14-CV-00612-RWS. Plaintiff appears to have mixed up
the second page of her complaints in these cases, which each refer to the defendant in
the other case. For the purposes of this Order, the Court considers the factual

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiff served for 17 years in the United States Marine Corps, Navy, and Navy
Reserve. (Dkt. [4-1].) In a subsequent motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Navy
did not follow proper protocol when she filed repeated complaints with her
superiors and requested a list of officers in her chain of command. (Dkt. [4-1,
4-3].) She also states that the Navy failed to pay her in a timely manner and
then administratively discharged her due to inadequate drill attendance. (Dkt.
[4-1].)
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” A claim
is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably
meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carrol v. Gross,
984 F.2d 393, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).

allegations of each page in its corresponding case.
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit is due to be dismissed because the
Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve her claims. “[C]ivilian courts have
traditionally deferred to the superior experience of the military in matters of
duty orders, promotions, demotions, and retentions.” Speigner v. Alexander,
248 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit has held that claims brought against the military
by enlisted personnel “for injuries incident to service are nonjusticiable.” Id.
To determine if an injury was incident to service, courts consider “(1) the duty
status of the service member, (2) the place where the injury occurred, and (3)
the activity the serviceman was engaged in at the time of injury.” Pierce v.
United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-53 (11th Cir. 1987). For instance, in Speigner
the court dismissed a claim by a former member of the Alabama National Guard
alleging racial discrimination and denial of equal protection and due process
based on his non-retention after an annual review. Id. at 1294. The court held
that military personnel decisions are incident to service and thus nonjusticiable.
Id. at 1298.
In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations relate to grievances she reported while
enlisted, as well as the circumstances of her ultimate separation from the Navy.
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

These are the very types of issues the Court is precluded from trying. Just as
“dictat[ing] to the military which officers should be considered competent”
would improperly interfere with military decision-making, see Speigner, 248
F.3d at 1298, so too would meddling in the Navy’s process of handling internal
complaints and requests from enlisted personnel. Consequently, Plaintiff’s
claims are nonjusticiable. Therefore, this action is due to be DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice,
and Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal [4, 5] and Motion to Speak to Judge Story [6]
are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of April, 2014.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)