Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David ISCHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.D. MILES, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-51108
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 12, 2003.
    David Phillip Ischy, Pro se, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Harold O’Hanlon Atkinson, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David Ischy, federal prisoner #49020-079, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his suit filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Ischy sued the warden of the federal prison where he was incarcerated in his official capacity and sought only injunctive relief. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction.

Although Ischy suggests that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, he does not identify a federal question. Official capacity suits against federal employees are generally treated as suits against the United States. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-67, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). However, suits against the United States brought under the civil rights statutes are barred by sovereign immunity. See Affiliated Prof'l Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir.1999). Bivens actions may be brought against defendants acting in their individual capacities only. See id. To the extent Ischy has sued Miles in his official capacity, his claim is barred as a matter of law. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ischy’s motion to amend his complaint. Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 379 (5th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.