NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY LEE CAESAR, No. 16-16505
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-
BAM
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY; BOARD OF MEMORANDUM*
THE CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Danny Lee Caesar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his military
service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s federal claims because
members of the armed forces may not file suit against the government for injuries
incurred during service. See Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1997)
(Feres doctrine bars members of the armed forces from bringing “an action against
the Government or armed services personnel for injuries during activity under the
control or supervision of a commanding officer.” (internal citation omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s breach of contract claim
because money damages are not an available remedy for the government’s breach
of an enlistment contract. See Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th
Cir. 1981).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16505