FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN J. COTA, Captain, No. 13-17678
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00576-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Captain John J. Cota appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
challenging the Coast Guard’s final decision to deny renewal of Cota’s Merchant
Mariner Credential. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. Cota failed to state a claim that the Coast Guard’s final decision to
deny his renewal application was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with the law in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”). See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Cota argues that the Coast
Guard’s process for reviewing his application and appeal denied him the
opportunity to respond to the determinations of the National Maritime Center
(“NMC”) and Commandant of the Coast Guard. This argument fails because the
Coast Guard provided Cota an opportunity to respond to each of its reasons for
denying his application. Specifically, the NMC’s April 29, 2011 supplemental
memorandum addressed each of the three grounds for the Coast Guard’s decision.
Cota received, reviewed, and responded to this memorandum in his letter of May
20, 2011. The Commandant denied Cota’s application after reviewing Cota’s
response. Therefore, Cota has failed to state a claim that the Coast Guard
arbitrarily or capriciously deprived him of an opportunity to respond to its reasons
for denying his renewal application.
2. Cota also failed to state a claim that the Coast Guard violated the APA
by misapplying its governing statutes and regulations. The Commandant did not
improperly rely upon 46 U.S.C. § 7101(e), which sets forth the conditions under
which an individual may be issued a pilot’s license. See 46 U.S.C.
-2-
§ 7101(c)(2), (e). The Commandant addressed § 7101(e) to distinguish the
professional qualifications for a master of towing vessels from the qualifications
“for [Cota’s] other officer endorsements”—including Cota’s endorsement as a
pilot. Section 7101(e) thus supports the proposition for which the Commandant
cited it: by satisfying the professional qualifications for a master of towing, Cota
would not necessarily satisfy the requirements for his “other endorsements,” one of
which (i.e., his endorsement as a pilot) required him to satisfy the additional
requirements of § 7101(e). Nor did the Coast Guard fail to comply with 46 C.F.R.
§ 10.237, which sets forth the procedures for notifying an applicant of his right to
appeal from a decision denying his application. The Coast Guard satisfied the
requirements of § 10.237(a) because it provided Cota a written statement listing the
reasons for denial in both its January 28, 2011 letter and its April 29, 2011
supplemental memorandum. See 46 C.F.R. § 10.237(a).
3. To the extent that the Coast Guard made any procedural errors in
denying Cota’s renewal application, none of those errors was prejudicial. See Nat’l
Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 659–60 (2007). Cota
does not challenge the outcome of the Coast Guard’s review of his renewal
application. As a result, Cota has failed to identify any way in which the
-3-
procedural errors that he alleges caused him prejudice. Accordingly, any
procedural error by the Coast Guard was harmless.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cota’s
claim for declaratory relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Declaratory relief may be
denied when it will “risk duplicative litigation” or fail to “serve a useful purpose in
clarifying the legal relations at issue.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101,
1107 (9th Cir. 2011). Cota sought a declaration that “the Commandant’s and the
United States Coast Guard’s final agency action . . . employed a process that is
arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” This claim is coextensive with
Cota’s APA challenge to the Coast Guard’s decision. The adjudication of this
claim would serve no useful purpose and would instead duplicate the adjudication
of Cota’s APA claim. The district court was therefore within its discretion to
dismiss Cota’s claim for declaratory relief.
AFFIRMED.
-4-