Several filings were made today in the Partington v. Houck, No. 12-5038, appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The most interesting among them was this preliminary statement of the issues Mr. Partington’s counsel — Charlie Gittins — intends to raise:
1. Whether the Distirct Court erred in finding the Navy Judge Advocate General (“NJAG”) has the statutory authority to discipline the plaintiff-appellant, a civilian defense attorney, who represents clients before the Navy and Marine Corps criminal and administrative proceedings, where no language appears to exist in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“U.C.M.J.”) that reflects a legislative intent providing the NJAG authority to discipline civilian attorneys.
2. Whether the District Court erred in deciding that plaintiff-appellant has no right to procedural due process in attorney disciplinary proceedings brought by the NJAG, and thus denied any damages sought pursuant to a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 402 U.S. 388 (1971), where the plaintiff-appellant was never given notice by the NJAG that a Naval proceeding concerning him was disciplinary in nature and resulted in his indefinite suspension from practicing law in any Navy and Marine Corps criminal and administrative proceedings, depriving him of a significant property interest.
3. Whether the District Court erred in finding that neither the NJAG nor the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“C.A.A.F.”) may be subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act or whether in the alternative the DC should have treated the Complaint as a Petition for Writ in the nature of mandamus.
4. Whether the District Court erred in failing to conduct a Preliminary Injunction hearing against the NJAG to enjoin all disciplinary action against plaintiff-appellant.