holding that the CSRA precluded an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)
How later courts described this case
- holding that the CSRA precluded an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 23, 2008
No. 08-11660 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-80714-CV-PCH
REGINALD HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
KATHLEEN ARCHER,
MARILU MACHIN,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS,
General Counsel,
CHALENE SZABO, Medical Center Director, Department
of Veteran Affairs,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 23, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Hill appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the
United States, finding that they were barred by the statute of limitations. He also
appeals an adverse summary judgment in favor of Kathleen Archer and Marilu
Machin on Hill’s claims against these defendants. We affirm.
A suit against the federal government is barred “unless action is begun
within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice
of the final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.” 28
U.S.C. § 2401(b). However, statutes of limitation are generally subject to
equitable tolling. Cook v. Deltona Corp., 753 F.2d 1552, 1562 (11th Cir. 1985).
Here, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the final denial of claim
letter was mailed on February 7, 2007 and that there was no basis for equitable
tolling. Therefore, the district court did not err by dismissing Hill’s claims against
the United States as time-barred.
We also conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Hill’s
constitutional claims against Kathleen Archer and Marilu Machin were barred by
the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388-
90, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2416-17, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983) (holding that the CSRA
2
precluded an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971));
Stephens v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, 901 F.2d 1571, 1576-78 (11th
Cir. 1990) (noting the CSRA is an adequate remedy and precludes all Bivens
actions for personnel actions that allegedly violate the Constitution). Moreover,
the district court did not err in granting Archer and Machin’s motion for summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no constitutional
violation here.
Upon review of the record and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
find no reversible error.
AFFIRMED
3