Here is a link to a McClatchy article about a recently dismissed civil case Klay v. Panetta, similar to Cioca v. Rumsfeld.

We have discussed the Klay testimony when she testified at court-martial as a complaining witness earlier.

7 Responses to “Klay v. Panetta dismissed”

  1. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Claims denied on Feres grounds.  Opinion is a good primer on when tort claims are Feres-barred and when they are not. 
    By the way, no link at the purported link to the McClatchy article.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    Admiral, works now :-)

  3. Bill C says:

    So here’s my question. At what point does the continuing filing of these suits become frivolous and subject to sanctions?  I mean, there is less of a chance of this suit prevailing then there is of the Supremes granting cert in New.  Ok, maybe they are about the same.  But they are both zero.

  4. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Bill C–Feres is subject to considerable criticism, and there are plenty of opinions out there where courts only very reluctantly deny claims against the United States on Feres grounds.  Justice Scalia is one of the more prominent critics.  
    What is and is not an injury incident to service under the Federal Tort Claims Act is an oft-contested question mixing law and fact.  Filing suit under the FTCA for injuries incurred in a Humvee crash while training at Ft Irwin on a theory that such injuries are not incident to service might well merit sanctions.  Arguing that being raped in a Humvee while training at Ft Irwin is not incident to service is quite another thing entirely.
    Now, if one keeps filing suits on the same theory after several district courts and circuit courts have held against you, that is yet another thing.  I don’t think things have gotten to that point yet. 
    Kind regards,

  5. Bill C says:

    CS:  As one who does FTCA work, I get your point.  But I know of no theory under which these cases can prevail.  If they want to sue their alleged attackers, that is one thing, but I know of no theory under which the government is on the hook, and the lawsuit doesn’t advance any.  But I agree that once a few more courts close the door, we have crossed that threshold.

  6. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Bill C:  I’m sure the groups that are financing these lawsuits have a bigger goal in mind as well.  Even if they cannot prevail in the courtroom, they score political points useful for lobbying Congress for a change in the law (the mean courts are punishing the victims all over again!)  Small battles in a large war.  As far as sanctions go, actually prevailing on a Rule 11 motion is, in my very limited experience, difficult.  I suspect it’s even more so when the moving party is the government seeking sanctions against a bunch of rape victims.
    Kind regards,

  7. Phil Cave says:

    As I mentioned in my report of a discussion post TIW at the Naro in Norfolk, one of those involved in the “financing” of the litigation indicated that they didn’t expect to win, but that they expected publicity.
    I’m unaware of any legal theory for litigation based on getting publicity for a cause under these circumstances.