PHILIP ROBERTS CHATMAN, Jr. v. United States Department of the Navy; U.s. Department of Veterans Affairs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP ROBERTS CHATMAN, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE NAVY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55611
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03692-CJC-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Chatman’s motion for in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 2) is
granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect this status. The Clerk will file
the Opening Brief at Docket Entry No. 3.
* 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).
FILED
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55611
Philip Roberts Chatman, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of his military
service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
under the Feres doctrine); Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir. 1995)
(dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Chatman’s § 1983 claims because
defendants are not state actors. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”); Morse v. N. Coast
Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (federal government
actors cannot be liable under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the
Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”) Chatman’s claims alleging a denial of
benefits and negligence. See Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d
1013, 1022-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (the VJRA precludes district court
jurisdiction over claims relating to or affecting the provision of benefits to
veterans).
To the extent that Chatman’s tort claims are related to his military service,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55611
the district court properly dismissed these claims as barred by the Feres doctrine
because Chatman’s alleged injuries arose in the course of activity incident to
military service. See United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 686-88 (1987)
(“[T]he Feres doctrine has been applied to consistently bar all suits on behalf of
service members against the Government based upon service-related injuries.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions, other than the motion for in forma pauperis status, are
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --