1994SoPh..151. · 1994SoPh..151..177H. 1994SoPh..151..177H. 1994SoPh..151..177H
3:10-cv-00257 #151
-
Upload
equality-case-files -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of 3:10-cv-00257 #151
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
1/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralMELINDA HAAGUnited States AttorneyARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER R. HALLTrial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.
Defendants.
____________________________________
)))))))
)))))
No. C 3:10-00257-JSW
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and John Berry,
Director of OPM, submit this response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos.
142-44.
In response to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to the First Claim for Relief
set forth in her Second Amended Complaint, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 3
of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), Defendants rely upon, and incorporate
by reference herein, their Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss, filed July 1, 2011, ECF No.
145. Attachment A.
Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summ ary Judgment
3:10cv257-JSW
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
2/66
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
3/66
ATTACHMENT A
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
4/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page1 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
5/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page2 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
6/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page3 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page4 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
7/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page4 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page5 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
8/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page5 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page6 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
9/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page6 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page7 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
10/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page7 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page8 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
11/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page8 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page9 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
12/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page9 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page10 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
13/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page10 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page11 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
14/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page11 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page12 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
15/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page12 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page13 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
16/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page13 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page14 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
17/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page14 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page15 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
18/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page15 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page16 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
19/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page16 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page17 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
20/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page17 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page18 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
21/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page18 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page19 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
22/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page19 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page20 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
23/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page20 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page21 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
24/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page21 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page22 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
25/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page22 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page23 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
26/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page23 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page24 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
27/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page24 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page25 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
28/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page25 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page26 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
29/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page26 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page27 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
30/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page27 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page28 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
31/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page28 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page29 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
32/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page29 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page30 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
33/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page30 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page31 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
34/66
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document145 Filed07/01/11 Page31 of 31Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-1 Filed07/15/11 Page32 of 32
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
35/66
ATTACHMENT B
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
36/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralMELINDA HAAGUnited States AttorneyARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER R. HALLTrial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.
Defendants.
____________________________________
)))))))
)))))))))
No. C 3:10-00257-JSW
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Date: July 29, 2011Time: 9 a.m.Place: Courtroom 11, 19 Floorth
U.S. Courthouse450 Golden Gate Ave.San Francisco, CA 94102
TO PLAINTIFF, INTERVENOR, AND RESPECTIVE COUNSEL:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, July 29, 2011, or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, located
at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendants United States Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and John Berry, Director of OPM, will move for dismissal of
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Am ended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118 Filed06/03/11 Page1 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
37/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants OPM and John Berry, Director of OPM, respectfully submit the instant
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. As background and basis for this
motion, Defendants state as follows:
1. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, insofar asthe First and/or Second Claim for Relief set forth in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint
assert or can reasonably be construed to assert a statutory claim as to the language of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, 5 U.S.C. 8901 et seq. (FEHBA), Defendants
respectfully move that such claim or claims be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
2. Defendants also respectfully request that the Court rule on Plaintiffs challenge to
the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 ( DOMA). As
the President and the Attorney General have stated, the Department will no longer defend the
constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to legally married same-sex couples.
Pursuant to the Presidents direction, however, Executive departments and agencies will continue
to comply with Section 3 unless and until it is repealed by Congress or there is a definitive ruling
by the Judicial Branch that Section 3 is unconstitutional. OPM and its Director are the named
Defendants in this case, and the Department of Justice represents these Defendants. Only a
judgment against Defendants could afford Plaintiff the relief she seeks, and only a judgment for
or against Defendants can definitively resolve the case or controversy between Plaintiff and
Defendants.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the United States House of
Representatives has moved to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of defending the
constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, ECF No. 103, and the Court granted that motion on
June 3, 2011. ECF No. 116. BLAG has indicated that it intends to move as an intervenor to
dismiss Plaintiffs constitutional challenge to Section 3. As Defendants previously explained in
response to BLAGs motion to intervene, ECF No. 112, Congresss interest in the constitutional
validity of a law does not itself confer standing to enter an action as a party. The Attorney
General, however, is committed to providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in
this litigation. The continuing role of the Executive Branch in this litigation ensures the
Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Am ended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW 2
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118 Filed06/03/11 Page2 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
38/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
existence of a justiciable case or controversy. In addition, the Department of Justice will take the
procedural steps necessary to enable BLAG to present arguments in support of the
constitutionality of Section 3. Accordingly, although the Department intends to file a brief that
presents the governments position on Plaintiffs equal protection challenge and intends to doso at the appropriate procedural stage of this action, pursuant to any scheduling order entered by
this Court or otherwise Defendants submit this motion as a procedural matter, to ensure that
this Court can consider arguments on both sides of the constitutional issue and to ensure that this
Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment on the basis of those arguments.
If this Court agrees with BLAG on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, it should
dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and enter judgment for Defendants. If this Court
agrees with Plaintiff and the United States as to the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, it
should not dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, but rather should enter such relief as is
appropriate given the procedural posture of this action at the time of such determination.
Dated: June 3, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA HAAGUnited States Attorney
ARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
/s/ Christopher R. HallCHRISTOPHER R. HALLD.C. Bar No. 468827Trial AttorneyU.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044(202) 514-4778 (telephone)(202) 616-8470 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants
Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Am ended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW 3
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118 Filed06/03/11 Page3 of 3Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page4 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
39/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralMELINDA HAAGUnited States AttorneyARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER R. HALLTrial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.
Defendants.
____________________________________
)))))))
))))))))))
No. C 3:10-00257-JSW
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Date: July 29, 2011Time: 9 a.m.Place: Courtroom 11, 19 Floorth
U.S. Courthouse450 Golden Gate Ave.San Francisco, CA 94102
Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to assert a statutory claim as to the language of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, 5 U.S.C. 8901 et seq. (FEHBA) and it is not clear
that she does such a claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.1
To the extent Plaintiff in fact asserts such a claim, she does so as an alternative to her claim1
that the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fifth Amendment. See 2d Am. Compl., 71, 72.
Defendants Memorandu m in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-1 Filed06/03/11 Page1 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page5 of 10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
40/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
An enrollment [in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)] for self
and family includes all family members who are eligible to be covered by the enrollment. 5
C.F.R. 890.302(a)(1) (emphasis added). A member of family is defined as either the spouse
of an employee or annuitant [or] an unmarried dependent child under 22 years of age . . . . 5U.S.C. 8901(5) (emphasis added). Because DOMA limits the term spouse for purposes of
federal law to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife, 1 U.S.C. 7, the FEHBA
itself does not permit the enrollment of Plaintiffs wife as a statutory matter.
Notwithstanding this statutory language, Plaintiff asserts in 71 of her First Claim for
Relief that the federal government through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
has authority to extend FEHBP benefits to same-sex spouses, and that OPMs understanding to
the contrary is not mandated by DOMA . . . but rather reflects an improper and overly narrow
construction of the permissible bounds of the federal governments authority to extend coverage
to family members. 2d Am. Compl. 71. In Plaintiffs view, the terms family members and
member of family in the FEHBA set general guidelines and minimum requirements of
coverage availability but do not establish absolute ceilings or outer boundaries of coverage. Id.
Plaintiffs argument is incorrect. Congresss specific definition of member of family
must be understood as encompassing the universe of persons who are eligible under that rubric.
Where Congress explicitly enumerates, the enumeration is usually construed as exclusive; this
concept is so well established as to be represented by a maxim of statutory construction,
expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other). See
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28-29 (2001). Further bolstering this textual reading,
Congress amended the FEHBA in 1984 to provide specific coverage for the former spouse of
an employee or annuitant whose marriage to the employee or annuitant has been dissolved by
divorce or annulment. See 5 U.S.C. 8901(10), 8905(c); see also Pub. Law No. 98-615, 3, 98
Stat. 3195, 3202 (1984); H.R. Report No. 98-1054 at 12, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5540,
5543 (observing that amendment was necessary because [a]fter divorce, the former spouse no
longer has access to health insurance coverage provided under the Federal employees health
benefits program).
Defendants Memorandu m in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW 2
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-1 Filed06/03/11 Page2 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page6 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
41/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Other tribunals have reached the same conclusion as to the correct construction of the
FEHBA. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010), the
district court addressed an identical statutory claim and held that [i]n the face of such strikingly
unambiguous statutory language to the contrary, this court cannot plausibly interpret the FEHBstatute to confer on OPM the discretion to provide health benefits to same-sex couples,
notwithstanding DOMA. Id. at 385-86. While it upheld OPMs construction of the FEHBA,
the district court in Gill ultimately held Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 386-97. And in In re. Levenson, 587 F.3d 925 (9 Cir. EDRth
Panel 2009), a case bearing procedural similarities to this, Ninth Circuit Judge Reinhardt, acting
in his administrative capacity, reached the same outcome. Judge Reinhardt rejected the
plaintiffs statutory claim, concluding that when the FEHBA . . . provisions defining family
members are read in light of the limitation imposed by DOMA, those provisions include only
opposite-sex spouses. Id. at 930-31 (emphasis in original); but see In re. Golinski, 587 F.3d 901
(9 Cir. EDR Panel 2009). As to the plaintiffs constitutional claim, Judge Reinhardt found thatth
DOMA violated the Due Process Clause. Id. at 931-34.
CONCLUSION
To the extent Plaintiff asserts a statutory claim under the FEHBA as part of the First
Claim for Relief of her Second Amended Complaint, 63 to 73, such claim must be dismissed
as a matter of law.
Defendants Memorandu m in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW 3
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-1 Filed06/03/11 Page3 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page7 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
42/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: June 3, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA HAAGUnited States Attorney
ARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
/s/ Christopher R. HallCHRISTOPHER R. HALLD.C. Bar No. 468827Trial AttorneyU.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044(202) 514-4778 (telephone)(202) 616-8470 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants
Defendants Memorandu m in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Com plaint
3:10cv257-JSW 4
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-1 Filed06/03/11 Page4 of 4Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page8 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
43/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralMELINDA HAAGUnited States AttorneyARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER R. HALLTrial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT andJOHN BERRY, Director of the Office ofPersonnel Management, in his officialcapacity
Defendants.
____________________________________
)))))))
))))))))
No. C 3:10-00257-JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint, any opposition thereto, any reply thereto, any further briefing by
any party or intervenor, and any oral argument thereon, the Court hereby
ORDERS that, insofar as Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint asserts a
statutory claim as to the language of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
5 U.S.C. 8901 et seq., such claim is DISMISSED; and, further,
ORDERS, as to Plaintiffs claim challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of
the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7, as follows:
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-2 Filed06/03/11 Page1 of 2Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page9 of 10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
44/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __________ _______________________________ Hon. JEFFREY S. WHITEUnited States District Judge
[Proposed] Order
3:10cv257-JSW 2
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document118-2 Filed06/03/11 Page2 of 2Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-2 Filed07/15/11 Page10 of 10
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
45/66
ATTACHMENT C
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
46/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralJOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLOUnited States AttorneySUSAN K. RUDYAssistant Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER R. HALLTrial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendantthe U.S. Office of Personnel Management
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OFPERSONNEL MANAGEMENT andJOHN BERRY,
Defendants.
____________________________________
))))))
)))))))))
No. C 4:10-00257-JSW
REPLY MEMORANDUMIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFSFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: November 5, 2010Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: Courtroom 11, 19 Floorth
U.S. Courthouse450 Golden Gate Ave.San Francisco, CA 94102
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page1 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 22
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
47/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
I. Plaintiff Offers No Real Dispute that the EDR Orders at IssueAre Administrative Rather than Judicial in Nature... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. OPM Has No Clear and Ministerial Duty to Comply with Any Order.. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. OPM is Statutorily Charged with the Administration of FEHBPas to All Federal Employees, Including Judicial Employees.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Judicial EDR Panels Lack the Authority to Bind OPM in its
Administration of the FEHBP... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51. The Powers Prescribed in 28 U.S.C. 332 Do Not
Authorize EDR Panels to Bind OPM in its Administrationof the FEHBP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. There is No Inherent Constitutional Power ThatWould Permit an EDR Panel to Direct OPM in itsStatutorily Charged Administration of the FEHBP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. There Is No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity that Would PermitOPM To Be Bound by an Administrative EDR Order.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW -i-
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page2 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
48/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Baltimore & O.C.T.R. Co. v. United States,593 F.2d 678. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10
Blankenship v. McDonald,176 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands,461 U.S. 273 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CAB v. Delta Air Lines,367 U.S. 316 (1961).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chambers v. NASCO,501 U.S. 32 (1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Ashcroft,286 F.3d 600 (D.C. Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Degen v. United States,517 U.S. 820 (1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dotson v. Griesa,398 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
In re. Golinski,587 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. EDR Panel 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Heckler v. Ringer,
466 U.S. 602 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hilbert v. Dooling,476 F.2d 355 (2d Cir. 1973).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Kobleur v. Group Hospitalization & Med. Servs.,954 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9
Lane v. Pena,518 U.S. 187 (1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Lehman v. Nakshian,453 U.S. 156 (1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
In re. Levenson,587 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. EDR Panel 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Link v. Wabash R. Co.,370 U.S. 626 (1962).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW -ii-
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page3 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page4 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
49/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NTEU v. Campbell,589 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Narenji v. Civiletti,617 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Natl Petroleum Refiners Assn v. FTC,482 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8
Pit River Home & Agr. Co-op. Assn v. United States,30 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ry. Labor Executives Assn v. Natl Mediation Bd.,29 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8
Rosano v. Dept of the Navy,699 F.2d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9
St. Tammany Parish v. FEMA,
556 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Transitional Learning Cmty. at Galveston v. OPM,
220 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford,141 U.S. 250 (1891).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
United States v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 206 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14
United States v. Sherwood,312 U.S. 584 (1941).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
West v. Gibson,527 U.S. 212 (1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Wilbur v. United States,281 U.S. 206 (1930).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Young v. U.S., ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.,481 U.S. 787 (1987).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
STATUTES
Pub. L. No. 76-299, 304(1), 53 Stat. 1223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1 U.S.C. 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5 U.S.C. 2104, 2105, 8901, 8902(a), 8903. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5
5 U.S.C. 5596. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW -iii-
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page4 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page5 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
50/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
28 U.S.C. 1361. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 1, 2
MISCELLANEOUS
Gordon Bermant & Russell R. Wheeler, Federal Judges and the Judicial Branch: TheirIndependence and Accountability, 46 Mercer L. Rev. 835, 855 (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Charles Alan Wright, et al., 14 FEDERAL PRACTICE &PROCEDURE 3655 (3d ed. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW -iv-
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page5 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page6 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
51/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is statutorily charged with the
administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as to all federal
employees, including those of the Judicial Branch. The source of that authority, the FederalEmployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), contains no provision that would grant any
administrative entity a role in reviewing action taken by OPM in such capacity. As such, when a
federal judge acting as an administrative hearing officer (and not in his Article III capacity)
purports to direct OPM to take actions under the FEHBP, OPM cannot be required to take such
actions even as to a Judicial Branch employee such as Plaintiff. Thus, OPM is entitled to
dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint, which seeks an order from this Court under the Mandamus
Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, requiring it to comply with just such an administrative directive issued by
the Honorable Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, in his capacity as a hearing
officer in the Ninth Circuits Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) process.
Plaintiff cannot satisfy the factors required to support the extraordinary and drastic
remedy of mandamus on the basis of those orders: a clear right to relief for Plaintiff, a clear and
ministerial duty for Defendants to act, and the unavailability of any other adequate remedy. To
even suggest the existence of any right or duty sufficient to warrant mandamus, Plaintiff must
establish one of two propositions: (1) that Judge Kozinski was acting with Article III force rather
than in a purely administrative capacity; or (2) that there is a specific grant of authority to the
federal courts to establish an internal administrative dispute resolution process that can direct
OPMs administration of the FEHBP. As to the first issue, Plaintiff does not substantively
dispute that Judge Kozinski was acting in a purely administrative capacity. As to the second,
Plaintiff fails to establish the existence of any grant of authority to the federal courts that would
allow an EDR panel to issue binding directives to OPM.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW -v-
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page6 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page7 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
52/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is statutorily charged with the
administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as to all federal
employees, including those of the Judicial Branch. The source of that authority, the FederalEmployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), contains no provision that would grant any
administrative entity a role in reviewing action taken by OPM in such capacity. As such, when a
federal judge acting not in his Article III role but as an administrative hearing officer purports to
direct OPM to take certain actions under the FEHBP actions that would contravene the FEHBA
OPM cannot be required to take such actions. Accordingly, OPM is entitled to dismissal of
Plaintiffs complaint, which seeks an order from this Court under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C.
1361, requiring it to comply with just such an administrative directive.
As the Court knows, the directive in question was issued by the Honorable Alex
Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, in his capacity as a hearing officer in the Ninth
Circuits Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) process. It purports to require OPM to instruct
Plaintiffs federal government insurance carrier to enroll Plaintiffs same-sex spouse in her
FEHBP plan despite a statutory preclusion against doing so under the Defense of Marriage Act, 1
U.S.C. 7 (DOMA). But Judge Kozinskis administrative orders do not carry the legal effect
Plaintiff contends they do, and they cannot as a matter of law bind OPM in its statutorily charged
administration of the FEHBP. Certainly, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the factors required to support
the extraordinary and drastic remedy of mandamus on the basis of those orders: a clear right to
relief for Plaintiff, a clear and ministerial duty for Defendants to act, and the unavailability of any
other adequate remedy.
As explained in OPMs opening memorandum, Plaintiff must establish one of two
propositions to even suggest the existence of any right to relief or duty to act, much less a clear
right or a clear and ministerial duty: (1) that Judge Kozinski was acting with Article III force
rather than in a purely administrative capacity; or (2) that there is a specific grant of authority to
the federal courts to establish an internal administrative dispute resolution process that can direct
OPMs administration of the FEHBP. As to the first issue, Plaintiff ultimately fails to dispute
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 1
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page7 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page8 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
53/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that Judge Kozinski was acting in a purely administrative capacity. Left to rely only upon the
second proposition, Plaintiff fails to establish the existence of any grant of authority to the federal
courts that would allow an EDR panel to issue binding directives to OPM. Conspicuously,
Plaintiff makes no argument that there is a specific grant of such authority. Instead, she contendsthat there is a non-specific but broad grant of authority that would allow an EDR panel to bind
OPM and that the issuance of such directives falls within the inherent power of the Judiciary.
Plaintiff is wrong on both counts.
Thus, for the reasons discussed herein and in OPMs opening memorandum, Plaintiffs
complaint should be dismissed.
ARGUMENT
The common law writ of mandamus, codified in 28 U.S.C. 1361, is an extraordinary
and drastic remedy. It is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all
other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Thus, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1361 only
exists when a plaintiff has a clear right to relief, a defendant has a clear duty to act and no other
adequate remedy is available. Pit River Home & Agr. Co-op. Assn v. United States, 30 F.3d
1088, 1097 (9th Cir. 1994). The defendant must have a ministerial duty. Indeed, such a duty
must be so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command. . . .
[W]here the duty is not thus plainly prescribed, but depends on a statute or statutes the
construction or application of which is not free from doubt, it is regarded as involving the
character of judgment or discretion which cannot be controlled by mandamus. Consol. Edison
Co. of New York, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 600, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Wilbur v. United
States, 281 U.S. 206, 218-19 (1930)).
Plaintiffs complaint fails to satisfy these requirements. Judge Kozinskis orders were
issued in his capacity as an administrative hearing officer under the Ninth Circuit EDR Plan, not
as an Article III court. Insofar as they purport to bind OPM in its administration of the FEHBP,
they exceed any authority delegated to an EDR panel by the FEHBA or any other statutory
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 2
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page8 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page9 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
54/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
source. OPM thus has no duty to follow those orders, much less the clear and ministerial duty
that is necessary, at a minimum, for mandamus to issue.1
I. PLAINTIFF OFFERS NO REAL DISPUTE THAT THE EDRORDERS AT ISSUE AREADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN JUDICIAL IN NATURE.
OPMs opening memorandum explained that the EDR orders were issued not in Judge
Kozinskis Article III capacity but rather his capacity as an administrative hearing officer. Defs.
Mem. at 10. Plaintiffs opposition does not respond substantively to that basic point. Instead,
Plaintiff appears to resort to suggestive phrasing particularly throughout her introduction and
background sections characterizing Judge Kozinskis EDR orders and the administrative
process in terms evocative of judicial rather than administrative action. For example, Plaintiff
suggests that OPM should have avail[ed] itself of the standard remedy of those aggrieved byan adverse court ruling if it disagreed with Judge Kozinskis administrative order, Pl.s Opp.
Mem. at 1, and characterizes the November 19, 2010 order as accusing OPM of attempting to
usurp the Judiciarys role as the ultimate interpreter of federal law, id. at 5. This evocative
language, however, does not camouflage the fact that Plaintiff fails to actually dispute anywhere
in her opposition that Judge Kozinski was acting in a purely administrative capacity when he
entered the EDR orders in question. This fundamental issue should thus be treated as having
been conceded by Plaintiff.
II. OPMHAS NO CLEAR AND MINISTERIALDUTY TO COMPLY WITH ANY ORDER.
OPM is statutorily charged with administering the FEHBP. In his capacity as an
administrative hearing officer in the Ninth Circuits EDR Plan, by contrast, Judge Kozinski
possesses no statutory authorization to issue orders that would bind OPM in the discharge of its
statutory duties. Thus, OPM bears no clear and ministerial duty to comply with Judge
Three orders are relevant. The first order, issued on January 13, 2009, instructed the1
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to submit a FEHBP enrollment
form for Plaintiffs spouse to her insurance carrier (January 13, 2009 Order). The second,
issued on November 19, 2009, purported to prohibit OPM from interfering with the first. In re.
Golinski, 587 F.3d 901 (9 Cir. EDR Panel 2009) (November 19, 2009 Order). The thirdth
purported to hold that the time for appealing the prior orders had expired as to OPM, and the
orders were thus final and preclusive as to OPM (December 22, 2009 Order).
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 3
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page9 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page10 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
55/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kozinskis EDR orders, and there is no viable claim under the Mandamus Act for this reason, in
addition to others set forth in OPMs opening memorandum.2
A. OPM IS STATUTORILY CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEHBP ASTO ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,INCLUDING JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES.
A recurring theme in Plaintiffs opposition is that OPM gratuitously intervened in a
purely intra-Judiciary employment dispute that did not involve OPM; obstructed an order by
Judge Kozinski that likewise did not concern it; and now, in defending this mandamus action,
collaterally attack[s] Judge Kozinskis EDR administrative jurisdiction over it concerning the
enforcement of such order. Pl.s Mem. at 1-2. This theme, and the implications Plaintiff seeks
to create through its repetition throughout her opposition, is misleading.3
As explained in OPMs opening memorandum, the authority to administer the FEHBPhas been statutorily conferred upon OPM; that authority encompasses all Federal employees,
including those of the Judicial Branch. See Transitional Learning Cmty. at Galveston v. OPM,
220 F.3d 427, 429 (5th Cir. 2000); Kobleur v. Group Hospitalization & Med. Servs., 954 F.2d
705, 709 (11th Cir. 1992). In particular, the FEHBA authorizes OPM to negotiate and contract
with private insurance carriers to offer health benefits plans to federal employees including
judicial employees and other eligible individuals, see 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2105, 8901, 8902(a),
8903, and to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the Act, id. 8913(a), including with
respect to plan enrollment, id. 8913(b).
OPMs authority is not unreviewable. The APA affords a cause of action for claims
against OPM arising out of its administration of the FEHBP, and the FEHBA specifically
provides that jurisdiction to review claims challenging OPMs administration of the FEHBP lies
OPMs opening memorandum explained why Plaintiff does not satisfy the other requirements2
for mandamus to issue. Defs. Mem. at 21-24. Her failure to make the required showing as to
each constitutes sufficient independent basis for dismissal of her complaint.
In similar fashion, the November 19, 2009 EDR order purported to instruct OPM not to3
interfere with the EDR panels jurisdiction or with the provision of FEHBP benefits to
Plaintiffs wife, inter alia. In re. Golinski, 587 F.3d at 963-64. Defendants respectfully but
strongly disagree with Judge Kozinskis characterization of the relationship between the EDR
panel and OPM for the same reasons set forth in the text herein.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 4
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page10 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page11 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
56/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which have concurrent
jurisdiction of a civil action or claim against the United States founded on [the Act]. Id.
8912. See NTEU v. Campbell, 589 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1978). But there is no provision of
the FEHBA expressly granting any administrative entity a role in reviewing any actions taken byOPM in administering the FEHBP. Cf. Rosano v. Dept of the Navy, 699 F.2d 1315, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (employing agency had no power to change FEHB[P] options[] determined by
OPM); In re. Levenson, 587 F.3d 925, 934 (9th Cir. EDR Panel 2009) (Reinhardt, J.).
Plaintiff appears to concede that OPM is statutorily charged with administration of the
FEHBP even as to judicial employees, having abandoned the assertion made in her preliminary
injunction memorandum that OPM does not have the authority to interpret the FEHBA as it
applies to judicial employees. See Pl.s P.I. Mem. at 12. For that reason, the Court should
disregard Plaintiffs efforts to characterize this case as a response to OPM having gratuitously
intervened in an internal employment dispute. Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 1. Characterized accurately,
this case concerns the authority of an administrative entity to intervene in the execution of duties
delegated by statute to OPM. As shown below, there is no such authority.4
B. JUDICIAL EDRPANELS LACK THE AUTHORITY TO BIND OPM IN ITSADMINISTRATION OF THE FEHBP.
By contrast to OPM, administrative EDR panels within the Judiciary have not been
conferred any statutory authority to interpret or administer the FEHBP, and thus cannot bind
Executive Branch agencies, including OPM. Plaintiff declines to argue that there is any specific
Evidently forced to concede OPMs statutory authority in this regard, Plaintiff attempts to4
mitigate the significance of that concession by suggesting that her claim is not founded on the
FEHBA which potentially would permit a claim under the FEHBA provisions of the Civil
Service Reform Act (CSRA). Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 12. Instead, Plaintiff suggests that her claim
is founded on the Ninth Circuits anti-discrimination policy as stated in the EDR Plan[.] Id.But this creates a separate problem for Plaintiff: if her claim is founded upon an internal 9 th
Circuit policy, then she is limited to whatever internal relief such an internal policy may afford.
Ultimately, Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. She cannot rely on an internal 9 Circuit policyth
and simultaneously argue that the policy can be enforced not just outside the Circuit, but across
separate branches of government, particularly with no waiver of sovereign immunity that would
permit an Executive Branch agency to be bound by an internal order of an administrative EDR
hearing officer. See Part II.C, infra.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 5
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page11 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page12 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
57/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Congressional grant of authority to the EDR Panel that would explicitly bind Executive Branch
agencies, including OPM. See Pl.s Mem. at 17. Nonetheless, Plaintiff reiterates her argument
that OPM must be bound by the EDR Order anyway because Congress had no need to delegate
specific authority by virtue of its grant of broad authority to each judicial council in 28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1) to make all necessary and appropriate orders for the administration of justice
within its circuit. See id. In Plaintiffs view, the only limitation upon this authority is an
inability for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council to issue orders as to the administration of justice
in other circuits. See id. at 16. Plaintiffs view is incorrect.
An administrative entity may only exercise authority consistent with Congressional
delegations of power that are explicit or can fairly be implied. Ry. Labor Executives Assn v.
Natl Mediation Bd., 29 F.3d 655, 666 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Not
only that; any delegation of authority to an administrative actor must also be specific: The extent
of [an entitys administrative] powers can be decided only by considering the powers Congress
specifically granted it in light of the statutory language and background. Natl Petroleum
Refiners Assn v. FTC, 482 F.2d 672, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
The history of this Circuits EDR Plan demonstrates that Congress has not vested EDR
panels with the authority to issue binding directives on entities outside the Judiciary. The EDR
Plan was developed without any express statutory authorization after many decades in which
necessary administrative support for the Judiciary was provided by the Executive Branch. See
Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156, 169-76 (2d Cir. 2005); Blankenship v. McDonald, 176 F.3d
1192, 1195 (9th Cir. 1999). It was only in 1980 that the Judicial Conference developed a model
EEO plan and required federal courts to adopt EEO plans of their own. See Dotson, 398 F.3d at
172. And as explained in OPMs opening memorandum, the administrative, intra-Judiciary EDR
plans established thereafter were not vested with any authority, statutory or otherwise, to bind the
Executive. Defs. Mem. at 11-16.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 6
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page12 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page13 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
58/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff effectively concedes the absence of any specific statutory delegation of authority
to Judiciary EDR panels to bind OPM in its administration of the FEHBP in her discussion of
two statutes previously offered as putative sources of such authority the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts Personnel Act of 1990 (AOUSC Act) and the CongressionalAccountability Act of 1995 (CAA). OPMs opening memorandum explained why neither
could be construed as a delegation of authority. Defs. Mem. at 14-16. In response, Plaintiff
essentially summarizes OPMs argument that the AOUSC Act and CAA [do] not confer any
powers upon the EDR tribunal then suggests that is precisely the point. Pl.s Opp. Mem. at
19. In Plaintiffs view, the premise that neither statute contains a delegation of authority to bind
Executive Branch agencies through the EDR process leads to the conclusion that such authority
already existed by virtue of the Judiciarys power to remedy unlawful personnel actions without
interference from other branches. Id. at 18. Plaintiffs conclusion is incorrect, as explained in
Part II.B.2, infra. But more to the point here, her premise is accurate neither the AOUSCA5
Act nor the CAA contains the specific delegation necessary for an EDR panel to bind OPM.
As to Plaintiffs corollary suggestion that EDR panels possess a preexisting authority to
bind Executive Branch agencies, however, she is incorrect. Plaintiff appears to be advancing two
distinct theories for such power (1) a broad statutory grant of authority under 28 U.S.C. 332
In fact, Plaintiffs argument as to this point crystallizes several of the structural flaws in her5
argument as a whole. For instance, Plaintiff suggests that the absence of specific grants of
authority to bind Executive Branch agencies in the AOUSC Act and the CAA shows evidence of
an inherent power to act without interference from the Executive. But Defendants have already
explained that the notion of OPMs interference is misplaced given OPMs statutory authority
as the only administrative entity charged with administration of the FEHBP. See Part II.A, supra;
Defs. Mem. at 16-17. Likewise, Plaintiff posits that the silence of the AOUSC Act and the
CAA on this subject represents evidence of an inherent power to remedy unlawful personnel
actions []. Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 6. Defendants agree that there are remedies for the errors allegedby Plaintiff. But, as previously shown, the existence of such remedies including the right to
seek judicial review of actions taken by OPM or her insurance carrier constitutes an
independent bar to mandamus relief. Defs. Mem. at 22-23. Indeed, as previously noted,
Plaintiff has available and is pursuing an adequate remedy before the EDR panel under the Back
Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596. Defs. Mem. at 23.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 7
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page13 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page14 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
59/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and (2) an inherent power to govern its own affairs without interference from other branches.
Neither theory is persuasive.
1. THE POWERS PRESCRIBED IN 28U.S.C.332DO NOT AUTHORIZE EDRPANELS TO BIND OPM IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEHBP.
OPMs opening memorandum explained why 28 U.S.C. 332 which authorizes each
circuits judicial council to make all necessary and appropriate orders for the administration of
justice within its circuit, 28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1) does not authorize an EDR panel to direct
OPM in its administration of the FEHBP. Defs. Mem. at 11-12. Plaintiffs opposition
essentially boils down to the notion that the language of 332(d) is broad, and [n]othing in
that broad delegation states that the orders of the judicial council may not bind those outside the
Judiciary. Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 16 (emphasis added). That suggestion is both logically unsoundand unsupported by case law.
Plaintiffs view of the issue and of her burden of persuasion is precisely backwards;
when addressing the existence or the extent of a statutory delegation of authority, the appropriate
question is what is specifically included in a statute, rather than what is not specifically excluded.
Natl Petroleum Refiners Assn, 482 F.2d at 674 (The extent of [an agencys] powers can be
decided only by considering the powers Congress specifically granted it in light of the statutory
language and background.). Likewise, the degree of authority delegated to an administrative
entity is strictly limited to what is either explicit or fairly . . . implied by a statute. Ry Labor
Executives Assn, 29 F.3d at 666 n.6. Section 332(d) does not specifically address the FEHBP or
the ability of judicial councils or EDR panels to issue orders concerning the administration of the
FEHBP, even as to Judicial employees. Nor can the authority to bind Executive Branch agencies
be fairly . . . implied by the language of 332(d)(1). To the contrary, the most that can be read
into or fairly . . . implied by that language is the delegation of authority to the judicial council
for each circuit to take actions necessary for the administration of justice within its circuit.
Here, the latter conclusion is reinforced by the FEHBAs specific grant of authority to
OPM to administer the FEHBP, and the lack of any provision granting any administrative entity a
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 8
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page14 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page15 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
60/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
role in reviewing OPMs actions in that regard. As explained in Part II.A, supra, and in OPMs
opening memorandum, the FEHBA specifically entrusts OPM with administering the FEHBP.
See Transitional Learning Cmty., 220 F.3d at 429; Kobleur, 954 F.2d at 709; cf. Rosano, 699
F.2d at 1319; In re. Levenson, 587 F.3d at 934. Indeed, Ninth Circuit Judge Reinhardt, sitting asan EDR hearing officer in a different but substantively similar matter, recognized this limitation
on his authority in the administrative context. See In re. Levenson, 587 F.3d at 934. Judge
Reinhardt noted that the FEHBA vests the authority to enter into health insurance contracts for
federal employees in a single executive agency, OPM, and thus concluded that it would not be
appropriate to issue an order directing the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central
District of California (FPD) to enter into separate contracts [for its employees] with private
insurers because [n]o statute or regulation authorizes the FPD to enter into [such contracts] or
to bind the United States to any such contract. Id.
Assessed against this context, Plaintiffs reliance on Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745
(D.C. Cir. 1979), and Baltimore & O.C.T.R. Co. v. United States, 593 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1978),
Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 17, is unavailing. To begin with, Plaintiffs own characterization of her
argument underscores why the authority delegated to the judicial councils in 28 U.S.C. 332(d)
does not extend across governmental branches. In Plaintiffs own words, where Congress
delegates broad authority to an entity, there is no need to identify a more specific delegation of
power for acts already encompassed within that broad authorization. Pl.s Opp. Mem at 17.
Even if that is correct, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the phrase within its circuit
a limiting preposition connoting a clear circumscription of scope encompasses the authority
to issue directives not just outside the circuit but outside the entire Judicial Branch. Plaintiffs
cited cases do not suggest otherwise. Narenji concerned the authority delegated to the Attorney
General under the Immigration and Nationality Act to, inter alia, promulgate regulations setting
conditions as to the admission or deportation of nonimmigrant aliens. 617 F.2d at 747. At issue
was the Attorney Generals authority to draw distinctions among nonimmigrant alien students
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 9
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page15 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page16 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
61/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the basis of nationality for purposes of establishing reporting requirements, which the
plaintiffs argued was outside the grant of authority. Id. Unsurprisingly, the court disagreed with
that argument, explaining that [t]he statute need not specifically authorize each and every action
taken by the Attorney General, so long as his action is reasonably related to the duties imposedupon him, and concluded that distinguishing among nationalities reasonably fell within such
duties as broadly defined. Id. Similarly, in Baltimore & O.C.T.R., the issue was whether a
statutory delegation of authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to compute
demurrage charges charges imposed for the detention of freight rail cars beyond an allotted
time for loading and unloading freight encompassed the remittance of such charges where
appropriate. 593 F.2d at 683. Noting that the statutory grant of authority also mandated the ICC
to establish rules and regulations regarding such charges, the court concluded that remittance
was included within the grant. Id. Here, by contrast, the language within each circuit in 28
U.S.C. 332(d) logically does not encompass the issuance of directives to Executive Branch
agencies, which are not within any circuit.6
2. THERE IS NO INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL POWERTHAT WOULDPERMIT AN EDRPANEL TO DIRECT OPM IN ITS STATUTORILYCHARGED ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEHBP.
Likewise, Plaintiffs suggestion that the power of an EDR panel to direct OPM in
administering the FEHBP is within the inherent powers of the Judiciary is incorrect. There is
no inherent constitutional power that would support the administrative directives issued to OPM,
particularly given a clear statutory context in which Congress has both declined to empower EDR
hearing officers to issue such directives and has specifically charged OPM with administering the
In addition, Plaintiff cites Hilbert v. Dooling, 476 F.2d 355 (2d Cir. 1973), for the proposition6
that 332(d) authorized the judicial counsel to create court rules requiring federal prosecutorsto be ready for trial within a certain time and permitting dismissal if they were not [], Pl.s Opp.
Mem at 16. But Hilbert is readily distinguishable. The ability to set deadlines for cases within
the Article III jurisdiction of the courts within a circuit, and consequences for failure to meet such
deadlines, is plainly necessary and appropriate to the administration of justice within the
circuit. Otherwise, courts would not be able to promulgate local rules.
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 10
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page16 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page17 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
62/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FEHBA. Even if the authority to create an internal administrative process for the resolution of
judicial employment disputes is inherent rather than statutory, as Plaintiff suggests, see Pl.s Opp.
Mem. at 19, it would not imply the much more significant authority to act with binding force
against an executive branch agency that has been statutorily charged with the administration of afederal benefits program.
Contrary to Plaintiffs suggestion, inherent judicial powers are those which cannot be
dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others. Chambers v.
NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Principles of
deference counsel restraint in resorting to inherent power, and require its use to be a reasonable
response to the problems and needs that provoke it. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 824
(1996) (internal citations omitted); see also Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. Article III courts possess
the inherent ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders. Young v. U.S., ex rel. Vuitton et
Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 796 (1987) (emphasis added). But that authority essential to ensuring
that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on
other Branches, id. at 796-97 is part of the courts core judicialpower, and says nothing about
an authority to compel compliance with orders issued in an administrative capacity.
The historic role of the Executive Branch in providing administrative support to the
Judiciary further dispels any suggestion that the Constitution provides federal courts inherent
authority to establish an administrative process pursuant to which a hearing officer can direct an
Executive Branch agency in circumstances such as these. Those who established the system of
separation of powers, including an independent judiciary, were content to allow judges and their
clerks to rely on executive branch support. Gordon Bermant & Russell R. Wheeler, Federal
Judges and the Judicial Branch: Their Independence and Accountability, 46 MERCERL.REV.
835, 855 (1995). Indeed, the Department of Justice provided administrative support for the
Judiciary until Congress created the AOUSC in 1939. See id. at 854-55; see also Pub. L. No.
76-299, 304(1), 53 Stat. 1223, 1223. Thus, there is no support for an argument that an
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 11
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page17 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page18 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
63/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
administrative power to direct the other Branches is inherent to the Judiciary, given that it did not
even administer itself for much of this nations history.
Indeed, even in the years since the Judiciary has been managing its own internal
personnel matters, it has never before laid claim to the kind of directive authority at issue here.Although administrative review within the judiciary plainly has a long history, which has been
well known to Congress, Dotson, 398 F.3d at 176, the directives at issue here appear to be
without precedent. Their sui generis nature supports the conclusion that the power claimed is not
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); see
generally Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 252-57 (1891) (surveying practice of
common law courts in concluding that federal courts do not possess inherent authority to order
medical examinations of plaintiffs).
C. THERE IS NO WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY THAT WOULD PERMIT OPMTO BE BOUND BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE EDRORDER.
Judge Kozinskis lack of authority as an EDR administrative hearing officer to direct
OPM in its administration of the FEHBP also means that this mandamus action falls outside of
the Courts subject-matter jurisdiction. As OPMs opening memorandum explained, there is no
applicable waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit either Judge Kozinski to direct OPM
in his administrative hearing officer capacity or an action under the Mandamus Act to compel
OPMs compliance with Judge Kozinskis orders. See Defs. Mem at 8-9. In response, Plaintiff
more or less wonders how sovereign immunity could conceivably bar the federal government
from ordering its own agency to change an employment policy in an administrative hearing.
Pl.s Opp. Mem. at 8 (emphasis in original); see also id. (None of the cases on which OPM
relies involved the federal government ordering itself to do something.) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs response demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of sovereign immunity.
As pointed out in OPMs opening memorandum, the United States may not be sued
without its consent and [] the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction[,] even in the
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 12
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page18 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page19 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
64/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
context of actual litigation pursuant to Article III. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 &
n.9 (1983) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). Moreover, the terms
of [the governments] consent to be sued in any court define that courts jurisdiction to entertain
suit. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 586 (emphasis added). Sovereign immunity is not simply a defenseto claims asserted in state court, as Plaintiffs argument seems to suggest. To the contrary, absent
a statutory waiver, sovereign immunity constitutes a bar to suit against the federal government
even in federal court. Charles Alan Wright, et al.,14FEDERAL PRACTICE &PROCEDURE 3655
(3d ed. 1998) (Although the United States district courts have general subject matter jurisdiction
over actions brought by federal agencies or officers who are authorized to sue, there is no
corresponding general statutory jurisdiction to entertain suits against federal agencies and
officers.) (emphasis added).
In other words, to adapt Plaintiffs own phrasing, there in fact are instances in which
sovereign immunity bars the federal government acting through the Judicial Branch from
ordering itself acting through the Executive to do something. See, e.g., Block v. North
Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983); St. Tammany Parish v.
FEMA, 556 F.3d 307, 316 (5 Cir. 2009). Indeed, given that sovereign immunity applies unlessth
it is specifically waived by statute, it is the default rule that the federal government cannot order
itself to do something. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (waiver of sovereign immunity
must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text and will not be implied.).
On that basis, if an Article III court acting as an Article III court cannot order relief
against the federal government absent a specific waiver of sovereign immunity, it necessarily
follows that a federal administrative entity is similarly constrained absent an applicable waiver.
In fact, that is even more the case with administrative entities, as a waiver of sovereign immunity
as to suit in an Article III court does not effect a waiver in other forums. West v. Gibson, 527
U.S. 212, 226 (1999). Rather, any waiver of the federal governments sovereign immunity as to
an action before an administrative entity must be explicit; limitations and conditions upon
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 13
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page19 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page20 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
65/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are
not to be implied. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 161 (1981). That is the case whether the
administrative actor is part of the Executive Branch or, as here, the Judicial Branch.
The absence of any applicable waiver of sovereign immunity here is underscored byanother argument raised by Plaintiff elsewhere in her opposition. Plaintiff suggests that she
satisfies the no other adequate remedy element of the mandamus standard because the CSRA
bars all resort to the courts for employment actions for judicial employees like herself, thus
making the EDR process the sole available source of relief for her claim. Pl.s Opp. Mem. at
11 (emphasis in original). In doing so, Plaintiff demonstrates precisely why there is no waiver of
sovereign immunity that would permit this mandamus claim against OPM. If the CSRA itself
provides no judicial remedy for adverse personnel actions for Judicial employees, the notion that
a court might be able to simply fashion one out of whole cloth would turn the doctrine of
sovereign immunity on its head. That is the fundamental point of sovereign immunity: if there is
no statute that expressly permits suit, courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over such action.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 212 & n.9.7
In short, to defeat sovereign immunity here, Plaintiff must point to a clear statutory
indication that Congress intended for OPM to be subject to directives issued by an EDR panel
regarding its administration of the FEHBP, and intended for such claims to be subject to review
by federal courts such as this one. That Plaintiff cannot do.
For the same reason, as well as the others set forth in OPMs opening memorandum, Defs.7
Mem. at 19-21, Plaintiffs argument that the November 19, 2001 order is res judicata as to OPM
is incorrect. The principle that an entity is not bound by a judgment in a proceeding to which it
was not a party applies with special force when that entity is an agency of the United States,protected by sovereign immunity the government cannot be bound in a proceeding even where
it has been joined as a party unless it has unequivocally consented to the jurisdiction of the
tribunal. Likewise, where an administrative actor possesses no statutory authority to administer a
particular statute, its rulings cannot be entitled to preclusive effect. See CAB v. Delta Air Lines,
367 U.S. 316, 322 (1961).
Reply in Support of Defendants Motion to D ismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Co mplaint
4:10cv257-JSW 14
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page20 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page21 of 22
-
8/6/2019 3:10-cv-00257 #151
66/66
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in OPMs opening memorandum, Plaintiffs
complaint should be dismissed.
Dated: October 6, 2010Respectfully Submitted,
MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLOUnited States Attorney
SUSAN K. RUDYAssistant Branch Director
/s/ Christopher R. HallCHRISTOPHER R. HALLD.C. Bar No. 468827Trial AttorneyU.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs BranchP.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044(202) 514-4778 (telephone)(202) 616-8470 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document75 Filed10/06/10 Page21 of 21Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document151-3 Filed07/15/11 Page22 of 22