Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05225/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05225-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5225 September Term, 2019

1:19-cv-01703-UNA

Filed On: January 14, 2020

Frank Eugene Lamb, III,

Appellant

v.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 3, 2019, be

affirmed. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

appellant’s claims for money damages against four federal government agencies

alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because

appellant has not shown that the agencies acted under color of state law, or that the

agencies may be held liable for tort claims alleging constitutional violations. See Settles

v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“To recover under

§ 1983, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was acting ‘under color’ of state law. 

Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law.”);

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994) (“[T]he United States simply has not rendered

itself liable . . . for constitutional tort claims.”). Moreover, appellant’s reliance on the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) is misplaced, because the APA waives sovereign

immunity only for actions seeking “relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Further, appellant has not demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing his

remaining claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a); Simpkins v. District of

Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“This court . . . [has] treated the

USCA Case #19-5225 Document #1824047 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5225 September Term, 2019

FTCA’s requirement of filing an administrative complaint with the appropriate agency

prior to instituting an action as jurisdictional.”). Appellant’s arguments as to why the

exhaustion requirement should not apply in this case are without merit. Finally, to the

extent appellant wishes to assert new claims, the district court’s dismissal of the case

without prejudice will allow him to file a new complaint. See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d

661, 666 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #19-5225 Document #1824047 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 2 of 2