Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3d 1334
We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b)
(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, Monzon v.
U.S., 253 F.3d 567, 569-70 (11th Cir.2001). We review de novo a district
court's grant of summary judgment. See, Walker v. Prudential Property & Cas.
The district court held that plaintiff's challenge is not within the jurisdiction of
the courts. The same challenge was made by a civilian employee of the United
States Navy in Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1151, 117 S.Ct. 1087, 137 L.Ed.2d 221 (1997). There the employee
claimed the instigation of a security check that led to revocation of his security
clearance constituted impermissible retaliation against him for filing an EEOC
complaint. The Fourth Circuit stated: "[the] distinction between the initiation of
a security investigation and the denial of a security clearance is a distinction
without a difference." Id. at 149. We agree.
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a decision concerning the
issuance or non-issuance of security clearance is a matter within the purview of
the executive and not to be second-guessed by the judiciary unless Congress
has specifically provided otherwise. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 108 S.Ct. 818, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988). To review the initial stages of a
security clearance determination is to review the basis of the determination
itself regardless of how the issue is characterized.
The district court properly identified and decided the issue in this case.
AFFIRMED.
Notes:
1