IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50233
Summary Calendar
ALEXIS COLON, Estate of Decedent by
Personal Representative Peaches Martinez,
Luis Colon; PEACHES MARTINEZ;
ALEXANDER MARTINEZ; LUIS COLON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WADDELL,
Lieutenant Colonel; TYRONNE S. LEONARD,
Staff Sergeant; McDONALD, Sergeant;
ARIES, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Waco
(W-95-CV-67)
May 7, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of themselves and
Alexis Colon, a member of the armed forces stationed at Fort Hood.
The complaint alleges that Colon committed suicide after being
subjected to sexual harassment by her superiors. According to the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
plaintiffs, not only was Colon a victim of harassment, but the
individual defendants retaliated against her for reporting their
harassment by wrongly accusing Colon herself of engaging in sexual
harassment.
However disturbing the plaintiffs’ accusations may be, we do
not have jurisdiction to hear them. The Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., does not waive governmental immunity
when a member of the armed forces on active duty seeks money
damages based on an injury suffered while performing military tasks
at a military base and inflicted by superior officers. Feres v.
United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950); Schoemer v. United States, 59
F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 519 (1995).
Even a case touted by the plaintiffs, Brown v. United States, 739
F.2d 362, 369 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 904 (1985),
in which enlisted men subjected a black private to a mock lynching,
recognized that a plaintiff’s “claims against the United States and
his superior officers for failing to prevent the incident, and
against his superior officers for failing to perform a proper
investigation, are barred by the Feres doctrine.” The Supreme
Court has similarly held that the reasoning in Feres serves to bar
Bivens claims. Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 300 (1983).
As we have recognized in the past, criticisms of the policies
embodied in Feres and Chappell are beside the point. “The Feres
doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court many times since
its inception in the face of strong criticism of the equity of the
2
rule.” Miller v. United States, 42 F.3d 297, 307 (5th Cir. 1995).
We are bound to follow that precedent.
AFFIRMED.
3