
    Frank Gregory FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victor ARTIGA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15050
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 19, 2016
    Mick G. Harrison, Esquire, Attorney, Mick G. Harrison, Esq., Bloomington, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Chi Soo Kim, Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Frank Gregory Ford appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), his action arising from his deployment in Iraq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2011) (Feres doctrine); Khalsa v. Weinberger, 779 F.2d 1393, 1395-96 (9th Cir. 1985) (claim involving a military decision), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ford’s constitutional and common law claims for monetary damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine because Ford alleges that he was an active duty service member of the California Army National Guard during the events that formed the basis of his action, and his claims arose incident to his active military service. See Feres, 340 U.S. at 146, 71 S.Ct. 153 (“[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”); Jackson, 648 F.3d at 733 (explaining scope and requirements of Feres doctrine).

The district court properly dismissed Ford’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief because Ford’s action challenged non-justiciable military decisions. See Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (outlining factors for determining whether judicial review of a challenge to a military decision is appropriate).

Ford’s requests to remove the United States Attorney’s office from this case, to appoint special counsel, and to prevent defendants from using taxpayer money for their defense, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

Ford’s request for oral argument, filed on November 3,2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     