Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2025–2026→ Stable · …exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile. at p. 334 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases→ Stable · …exhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile. at p. 334 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2025–2026→ Stable · …an administrative appeal would be futile. at p. 334 ✓ Topic ↗
41 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yeraldo Fransisco Loasiga-Obando v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of DHS; Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; Garrett Ripa, Field Office Director Miami Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Warden, Miami Federal Detention Center (flsd, 2026-05-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 33 C.F.R. § 52.35-15 cited 1× in this case · 4 total citations of statute #2 14 U.S.C. § 291 cited 1× in this case · 7 total citations of statute #1 33 C.F.R. § 52.05-5 cited 1× in this case · 2 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yeraldo Fransisco Loasiga-Obando v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of DHS; Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; Garrett Ripa, Field Office Director Miami Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Warden, Miami Federal Detention Center
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Catalino Ortega v. Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Warden, Miami Federal Detention Center FDC; U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leamsy Izquierdo Molina v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maximiliano Enrique Arias-Rodriguez v. Miami Ice Field Office Director, in his official capacity; Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity as Senior Official Performing Duties of Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Attorney General, in his official capacity.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Julio Cesar Gonzalez Ochoa v. Miami Ice Field Office Director, in her official capacity, and U.S. Attorney General, in her official capacity
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andy Jimenez Guevara v. Director Garrett Ripa, Miami Field Office Director ICE, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Administrative “exhaustion is not required where[,]” as here, “an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Byran Antonio Flores Tamaris v. Kristi Noem, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Not so. “[E]xhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. II.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Oscar David Galvis Jinete v. Miami FDC
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
But “exhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edubi Mena Antonio v. Warden, Krome Service Processing Center; Miami ICE Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; and Kristi Noem, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grevi Levi Lainez Rivera v. Warden, Krome North Service Processing Center, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Administrative “exhaustion is not required where[,]” as here, “an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brayan Alexis Gramajo-Zabaleta v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Not so. “[E]xhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duglas Funes Mejia v. Todd Lyons, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Generally, “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists. . . or an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (alterations added; citations omitted); see also United States v. Barbieri, No. 18-cr-20060, 2021 WL 2646604 , at *2 (S.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samuel Eliseo Diaz-Murica v. Kelei Walker, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Not so. “[E]xhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Reyes Gomez v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Not so. “[E]xhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregorio US Castro v. Charles Parra, in his official capacity as Assistant Field Office Director, Krome North Service Processing Center; Garret Ripa, in his official capacity as Miami Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, administrative “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis Bonilla Garcia v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Not so. “[E]xhaustion is not required where . . . an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jorge Alejandro Erazo Figuera v. Garrett Ripa, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Miami Field Office, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
Administrative “exhaustion is not required where[,]” as here, “an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernando Josue Ardon-Quiroz v. Assistant Field Director, Krome North Service Processing Center, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Administrative “exhaustion is not required where[,]” as here, “an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eduardo Duvallon Boffill v. Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Administrative “exhaustion is not required where[,]” as here, “an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victor Manuel Alvarez Puga v. Assistant Field Office Director, Krome North Service Processing Center, et al.
S.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Generally, “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists . . . or an administrative appeal would be futile[.]” Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (alterations added; citations omitted); see also United States v. Barbieri, No. 18-cr-20060, 2021 WL 2646604 , at *2 (S.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AIR FORCE OFFICER v. AUSTIN
M.D. Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Von Hoffburg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1980)); Rucker v. Sec’y of the Army, 702 F.2d 966, 969 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1971)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabriel J. Martinez v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Guerra v. Scruggs, 942 F.2d 270 (4th Cir.1991); Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 333-34 (11th Cir.1982); Diliberti v. Brown, 583 F.2d 950, 951 (7th Cir.1978); Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1974).
examined Cited as authority (rule) David M. Winck, Jr. v. Gordon R. England, Julian E. Sallas, Richard G. Hoffman, John Ashcroft, Mac Cauley (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Consequently, unless Winck can demonstrate that his petition implicates one or more of these exceptions, it is due to be denied. 6 Generally, “exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists, irreparable injury will result if the complaining party is compelled to pursue administrative remedies, or an administrative appeal would be futile.” Linfors, 673 F.2d at 334 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Cook
11th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See generally Deltona Corp. v. Alexander, 682 F.2d 888, 893 (11th Cir.1982) (no exhaustion of administrative action required where it would be futile); Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1982) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Penagaricano v. Lienza, 747 F.2d 55, 61 (1st Cir.1984) (military personnel must exhaust administrative remedies provided by the military service before seeking relief in civilian courts); Guitard v. United States Secretary of the Navy, 967 F.2d 737 , 740 (2nd Cir.1992) (exhaustion required in military discharge case); Blassingame v. Secretary of the Navy, 811 F.2d 65, 71 (2d Cir.1987) (the right to obtain judicial review of a Correction Board decision accrues at the time of the decision); Dougherty v. United States Navy Bd. for Correction of Naval Records, 784 F.2d 499, 501 (3d Cir.1986) (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Panola Land Buyers Association v. Shuman
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Deltona Corp. v. Alexander, 682 F.2d 888, 893 (11th Cir.1982); Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1034 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1982). 27 As with many broad doctrines of judicial function, the exhaustion doctrine has exceptions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Deltona Corp. v. Alexander, 682 F.2d 888, 893 (11th Cir.1982); Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1034 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1982).
cited Cited "see" Nichols v. Board of Trustees of the Asbestos Workers Local 24 Pension Plan
D.D.C. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir.1982).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Doe v. Department of the Navy
N.D. Ind. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1982); Thornton v. Coffey, 618 F.2d 686, 692 (10th Cir.1980); and Kruger v. Department of the Army, 594 F.Supp. 565, 568 (N.D.Ill.1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Barr v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc.
Ark. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir. 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Steenson v. Marsh
N.D. Ala. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
He submits that the question before the court is one of statutory construction, that there is no uncertainty about the facts, and that resort to the appropriate administrative agency would be futile. “[Military personnel with grievances against the military establishment or its personnel must exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the military service before seeking relief in civilian courts.” Penagaricano v. Llenza, 747 F.2d 55, 61 (1st Cir.1984); see also, Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir.1982).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bateman v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama
M.D. Ala. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Linfors v. United States, 673 F.2d 332 (11th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nils LINFORS, Jr.
v.
The UNITED STATES of America and John B. Hayes, United States Coast Guard
No. 81-5146.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 12, 1982.
673 F.2d 332
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20241
Nils Linfors, Jr., pro se., Virginia I. Bell, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.
Anderson, Hatchett, Vance.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Commander Nils Linfors, Jr., entered the Coast Guard Academy on July 5, 1957, and was discharged as a cadet on June 6, 1961. Upon graduation from the Academy on June 7, 1961, he was commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Coast Guard and has been successively promoted to his present rank. On July 2, 1979, Commander Linfors submitted his request for voluntary retirement * to the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, his request alleging time spent in cadet service at the Coast Guard Academy was creditable in computing length of service for retirement. The Commandant agreed that duty as a cadet was active service, but denied the request based on a Coast Guard policy of not including time as a cadet for retirement purposes. Linfors then brought suit in the United States Court of Claims.

The Court of Claims, 650 F.2d 288, granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment for want of jurisdiction, but allowed Linfors to transfer the case to an appropriate district court. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the defendants moved to dismiss the action due to Linfors’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court denied this motion but granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits, holding that although time spent at the Coast Guard Academy is active service, it may not be credited in computing length of service and eligibility for retirement. Because Linfors has failed to exhaust available military administrative remedies, it is our opinion that the district court should have dismissed the complaint. Therefore, we remand to the district court to dismiss the complaint.

The exhaustion doctrine requires a litigant seeking to overturn an adverse admin[*334] istrative ruling to first exhaust all available administrative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). The doctrine’s aim is to forestall the courts from rendering a decision until the administrative process is concluded. Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1980). “[A] court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures.” Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971) (emphasis added).

The strict application of the exhaustion doctrine is not without its exceptions. For example, exhaustion is not required where no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists, Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417, 420-21 (5th Cir. 1974), irreparable injury will result if the complaining party is compelled to pursue administrative remedies, Rhodes v. United States, 574 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1978), or an administrative appeal would be futile, Von Hoffberg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 638. None of these exceptions pertain to the case before us.

Linfors’s administrative remedy is governed by 10 U.S.C. § 1552, which establishes a Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) for each branch of the service. The BCMR’s function is to

consider all applications properly before it together with all pertinent military records to determine whether an error has been made in the Coast Guard record, or whether ... the subject of the application has suffered a wrong as the result of an error of omission or commission in his records ....

33 C.F.R. § 52.05-5 (1980). The decision of the BCMR is then reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation. 33 C.F.R. § 52.35-15 (1980). Contrary to Linfors’s argument that application to the BCMR would be futile, he could have applied.to the Coast Guard’s BCMR to correct his record to reflect his active service creditable for retirement purposes commenced upon the date of his entry into the Coast Guard Academy rather than upon his commissioning as an Ensign. His failure to exhaust this administrative procedure renders his complaint in the district court premature, and it was error for that court to address the merits without first requiring Linfors to surmount “the exhaustion hurdle.” Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d at 424.

The district court’s order in favor of the government is therefore vacated and the case remanded with directions that Linfors’s complaint be dismissed.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Title 14 U.S.C. § 291 provides:

Any regular commissioned officer who has completed twenty years active service in the Coast Guard, Navy, Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, or the Reserve components, thereof, including active duty for training at least ten years of which shall have been active commissioned service, may, upon his own application, in the discretion of the President, be retired from active service, with retired pay of the grade which retired.