Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60780/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60780-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60780

Summary Calendar

LAL BHATIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED 

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; BUREAU OF 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DOES 1 THROUGH 50,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:13-CV-199

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lal Bhatia, federal prisoner # 97562-011, appeals the dismissal of his 

complaint alleging violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq., and 

the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Separation of Powers

Doctrine. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a 

claim.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-60780 Document: 00513067709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015
No. 14-60780

2

We must raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Bhatia 

named several federal agencies as defendants. The district court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction over Bhatia’s claims that these agencies violated 

his constitutional rights because Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), does not provide a cause of action 

against a federal agency. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 486 (1994). We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as modified to be for lack of 

jurisdiction with respect to Bhatia’s constitutional claims against the federal 

agencies.

We review do novo the district court’s dismissal of Bhatia’s Privacy Act 

claims and constitutional claims against unnamed individual defendants. See

Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The 

district court correctly concluded that the records at issue are exempt under 

the law enforcement exemption in § 552a(j)(2). The district court also correctly 

concluded that Bhatia’s Privacy Act claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because a favorable decision in the instant case 

would necessarily imply the invalidity of Bhatia’s convictions. Heck also bars 

Bhatia’s constitutional claims against the unnamed individual defendants for 

the same reason. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Case: 14-60780 Document: 00513067709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2015