United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1607
WILFREDO DIAZ-ROMERO, M.D.; LUZ ARIANA ORTIZ-COLON;
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP DIAZ-ORTIZ,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General; RICHARD E. CHAVEZ,
Warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center, Guaynabo, PR;
EDWARD GONZALEZ, Warden, in his official and personal capacities;
NOEMI POTTS, in her official and personal capacities;
DR. OLGA GRAJALES, in her official and personal capacities;
A-Z INSURANCE COMPANIES; JANE DOE; RICHARD ROE,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges,
and Smith,** District Judge.
Julio C. Alejandro Serrano, with whom Nicolas Nogueras, Jr.,
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael
B. Mukasey has been substituted for former Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales.
**
Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
and Nicolas Nogueras Law Office were on brief, for appellants.
Germán A. Rieckehoff, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Rosa E. Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Nelson
Pérez Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, were on brief, for appellee.
January 31, 2008
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. The district court dismissed the
complaint of Wilfredo Diaz-Romero for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We affirm because Diaz-Romero's status as a
commissioned officer of the Public Health Service ("PHS") bars his
suit for service connected injuries.
I. Facts
Because the complaint was resolved on a motion to
dismiss, the facts are set forth as alleged in the complaint and
inferences taken in the light most favorable to Diaz-Romero, the
non-moving party. Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d
92, 94 (1st Cir. 2007).
Wilfredo Diaz-Romero was a commissioned officer with the
PHS, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Like the armed service branches, the PHS is a "uniformed service"
of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 201(p). While serving with the
PHS, Diaz-Romero was assigned to the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
("BOP") Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico as
"Clinical Director."
The PHS and the BOP have a detailed Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") in place that governs conditions of
employment for PHS officers placed with the BOP.1 In particular,
1
The MOU was filed as an exhibit to the government's motion to
dismiss. We are permitted to rely on this document in resolving
the jurisdictional question. See Gonzalez v. United States, 284
F.3d 281, 288 (1st Cir. 2002); Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d
1200, 1210 (1st Cir. 1996).
-3-
the MOU establishes both a discipline and evaluation process for
commissioned officers of the PHS assigned to the BOP. Diaz-
Romero's role within the PHS and his salary were both outside the
BOP's control.
During Diaz-Romero's stint with the BOP he was involved
in two incidents. First, another BOP employee filed a sexual
harassment complaint against him, although an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission investigator later concluded that the
complaint was unfounded. Second, he failed to report to management
that an inmate greeted him by placing her cheek next to his and
"throwing" a kiss to the air.
Following the second incident Diaz-Romero suffered a
series of adverse employment actions. A performance evaluation of
him was revised downward. He was also suspended, with pay, from
his duties as Clinical Director and then demoted to the inferior
position of "Medical Officer." Ultimately, both Diaz-Romero's
assignment with the BOP and his commission with the PHS were
terminated.
These unfavorable employment actions prompted Diaz-
Romero, his spouse, and their conjugal partnership, to file this
action. The suit named the United States Attorney General and the
warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center in their official
capacities, as well as several other current and former BOP and PHS
employees in both their personal and official capacities.
-4-
Diaz-Romero asserted that he was punished for defending
against the sexual harassment claim and not because of the incident
with the inmate. He brought a bevy of claims, including claims
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., alleging that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights and
created a hostile work environment. Specifically, Diaz-Romero
claimed the defendants violated the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments and committed torts under article 1802 of the
Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5191.2 He sought
both compensatory and punitive damages.
In dismissing Diaz-Romero's claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the district court ruled that the FTCA and
Bivens claims were barred by the doctrine of Feres v. United
States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), which limits suits for injuries
arising "incident to military service." The court noted that,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 213(f)3, Diaz-Romero was, at all times
2
Although Diaz-Romero also filed claims pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, he does not appeal the district
court's resolution of those claims.
3
This statute reads:
Active service of commissioned officers of the [Public
Health] Service shall be deemed to be active military
service in the Armed Forces of the United States for
purposes of all laws related to discrimination on the
-5-
relevant to the complaint, deemed to be in active military service
in the Armed Forces. Because Diaz-Romero was in active service in
the Armed Forces at the time of his injuries, the court reasoned,
the injuries he suffered were "incident to military service" and
thus triggered the Feres doctrine's bar.
II. Discussion
Diaz-Romero appeals the district court's dismissal of his
FTCA4 and Bivens claims, contending that the court erroneously
relied on the Feres doctrine. We review a dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Feres doctrine de novo.
See Day v. Mass. Air Nat'l Guard, 167 F.3d 678, 681 (1st Cir.
1999).
A. FTCA claims
The United States has consented, in the FTCA, to be sued
for damages for personal injury caused by "the negligent or
basis of race, color, sex, ethnicity, age, religion,
and disability.
4
Diaz-Romero identifies three torts under Puerto Rico law that
underlie his FTCA claims: (1) abuse of process; (2) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; and (3) hostile workplace
environment. Although the district court did not examine his
tort claims in any detail, and instead dismissed the case on
jurisdictional grounds, we note that Diaz-Romero only alleges one
tort claim that we conclude is clearly colorable under the FTCA
and Puerto Rico law - intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The tort of abuse of process is specifically excepted
from the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Moreover, although
Diaz-Romero asserts that Puerto Rico law recognizes the tort of
hostile workplace environment, he fails to provide any case law
in support of his contention.
-6-
wrongful act or omission" of a federal employee "while acting
within the scope of his employment," if under the same
circumstances a private employer would be liable for the acts of
his employee under the local law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674,
2675(a). The Feres doctrine is a judicially crafted exception to
the FTCA. See Feres, 340 U.S. at 135; Day 167 F.3d at 681. It
bars military service members from bringing FTCA suits against the
United States for injuries that "arise out of or are in the course
of activity incident to service." See Feres, 340 U.S. at 146.
Courts have identified a number of justifications for the doctrine.
One of the most often cited justifications is that, absent the
Feres doctrine, the judiciary would become ensnared in "sensitive
military affairs at the expense of military discipline and
effectiveness." See United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 690
(1987)(quoting United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 59 (1985));
see also Day 167 F.3d at 682 (noting the Supreme Court's emphasis
on the doctrine's purpose of avoiding undue judicial interference
in military discipline and "grievance matters").
Although we have not previously explicitly held that the
Feres doctrine applies to commissioned officers in the PHS, Diaz-
Romero does not contest the doctrine's general applicability to
members of the PHS. We conclude that Feres applies to the PHS.
The similarities and relation between the armed service branches
and the PHS merit the Feres doctrine's extension to health service
-7-
officers. The PHS is, along with the armed service branches,
designated as a uniformed service of the United States. 42 U.S.C.
§ 201(p). It is organized along military lines, each commissioned
officer grade having a statutorily stated military rank equivalent.
42 U.S.C. § 207. Commissioned officers of the PHS, or their
surviving beneficiaries, are entitled to many of the same statutory
rights, benefits, privileges, and immunities provided to
commissioned officers of the United States Army or their surviving
beneficiaries, 42 U.S.C. § 213a(a), and PHS regulations specify
that failure to follow the orders of superior officers will result
in disciplinary action. Commissioned Corps Personnel Manual,
Chapter CC46, Subchapter CC46.4. Importantly, in times of war or
emergency the President may transform the PHS into a regular branch
of the armed services, subject to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. 42 U.S.C. § 217. It is not surprising then, that other
circuits considering this question have concluded that the Feres
doctrine applies to commissioned officers in the PHS. See Scheppan
v. United States, 810 F.2d 461, 463 (4th Cir. 1987); Alexander v.
United States, 500 F.2d 1, 4 (8th Cir. 1974); see also Levin v.
United States, 403 F. Supp. 99, 103 (D. Mass. 1975)("There is no
reasonable way, in law or logic, to distinguish the position of the
PHS officer from that of the military man, for purposes of tort
suits."). We join the other circuits.
-8-
Even though the Feres doctrine applies to Diaz-Romero as
a health officer, there is an additional question that must be
answered in order to determine whether the doctrine bars his tort
claims. That question is whether the injuries he suffered were
"incident to service." As we have noted, determining whether an
injury was incident to service involves
asking whether it occurred on a military
facility, whether it arose out of military
activities or at least military life, whether
the alleged perpetrators were superiors or at
least acting in cooperation with the military,
and--often stressed as particularly important,
whether the injured party was himself in some
fashion on military service at the time of the
incident. No single element in the equation,
the Supreme Court has said, is decisive.
Day, 167 F.3d at 682 (internal citation omitted).
Here, the incidents that are alleged to have caused Diaz-
Romero's injuries occurred while Diaz-Romero was actively serving
in his PHS assigned post with the BOP. Specifically, Diaz-Romero
claims that supervisors injured him by applying BOP regulations
against him. See Chatman v. Hernandez, 805 F.2d 453, 457 (1st Cir.
1986) (concluding injury was incident to service because, among
other things, "[a]t the time of alleged wrongs in this case,
appellant was in fact a serviceman on active duty."); see also
Levin, 403 F. Supp. at 103 (noting plaintiff's injuries were
"clearly 'service connected'" where harassment on job caused
plaintiff, a commissioned officer in the PHS, to commit suicide).
Moreover, the alleged perpetrators in this case, Diaz-Romero's
-9-
supervisors at the BOP, were acting in cooperation with the PHS, in
that the PHS placed Diaz-Romero with the BOP and that the BOP's
control over Diaz-Romero was subject to the MOU between the PHS and
the BOP.
Diaz-Romero argues that his injuries were not incident to
service because his service with the BOP was not like military
service. He notes that the BOP is guided by civilian objectives
and principles and that the defendants did not act pursuant to
military commands. Consequently, his thesis runs, one of the Feres
doctrine's primary purposes, preventing judicial involvement in
sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline
and effectiveness, would not be served by barring his lawsuit.
This argument is more properly aimed at the invocation of
Feres in the first place rather than the application of Feres's
"incident to service" test to the injuries alleged, and we have
already determined that the Feres doctrine applies to commissioned
officers of the PHS. Put simply, the largely fact-specific
"incident to service" test is not amenable to Diaz-Romero's
argument.
Moreover, the specific point of his argument -- that
applying the Feres doctrine to bar his lawsuit would not serve the
purposes of the doctrine -- also misses the mark. As we noted
earlier, one of the purposes of the Feres doctrine is to prevent
the judiciary from becoming embroiled in sensitive military affairs
-10-
at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness. Because
of the similarities between the PHS and other armed service
branches, courts have noted that barring tort suits by commissioned
officers of the PHS for service-related injuries serves this same
purpose. See Alexander, 500 F.2d at 4 ("[The similarities] to
military service illustrate how the concern voiced in Feres
regarding the effect of tort suits on discipline and internal
structure appl[ies] with equal force to the Public Health
Service."); see also Levin, 403 F. Supp. at 103 (rejecting as
"invalid" plaintiff's assertion that disciplinary concerns were of
minimal importance in the PHS).
It is not difficult to see how the discipline and
effectiveness purpose of the Feres doctrine is served by barring
Diaz-Romero's action. Diaz-Romero claims that he suffered a number
of injuries while serving with the BOP. These injuries include:
(1) a demotion from Clinical Director to Medical Officer; (2)
eventual termination of his commission; and (3) injuries stemming
from the BOP's evaluation process. He claims that the defendants'
application of BOP regulations caused his injuries.
Forming an intrinsic part of these regulations is the MOU
between the BOP and the PHS. In the MOU, the PHS and the BOP
created an internal structure to deal with disciplinary actions
taken against PHS officers and the BOP's evaluation of PHS
officers. For example: (1) The PHS must exercise professional
-11-
oversight of PHS commissioned officers assigned to the BOP; (2) the
BOP is tasked with advising the PHS of disciplinary actions taken
against PHS commissioned officers; (3) the PHS is ultimately
responsible for actions taken against PHS commissioned officers
with respect to substandard performance or misconduct; and (4) all
evaluations of PHS officers must be completed in accordance with
PHS procedures. Unquestionably, Diaz-Romero's lawsuit would
require judicial inquiry into the disciplinary scheme and
evaluation procedures set forth in the MOU. Such an inquiry would
frustrate the Feres doctrine's purpose of avoiding interference
with disciplinary schemes implemented by the uniformed services, in
this case those of the PHS.
B. Bivens claims
In addition to his claims under the FTCA, Diaz-Romero
sued his federal supervisors under Bivens in both their official
and individual capacities. These claims require only the briefest
treatment. The Feres doctrine applies with equal force to bar
Bivens suits if the suits are based on injuries that "arise out of
or are in the course of activity incident to service." See Wright
v. Park, 5 F.3d 586, 590 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting Supreme Court's
decision in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) "makes
pellucid that the exception to Bivens liability . . . is
coextensive with the exception to tort liability established by
Feres and its progeny"). We have already concluded that Feres bars
-12-
Diaz-Romero's FTCA claims; it necessarily follows that his Bivens
claims, based on the same events that gave rise to his FTCA claims,
are barred as well.
Affirmed.
-13-