What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
MONKS v. NEW JERSEY
No. 127.
Argued February 26, 1970
Decided May 25, 1970
Anthony G. Amsterdam, by appointment of the Court, 395 U. S. 942, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Michael Meltsner.
Archibald Kreiger argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John G. Thevos.
Per Curiam.
Having scrutinized the record and considered the briefs and oral arguments submitted on both sides, we are satisfied that petitioner’s claim of coercion respecting his confession, given by him over 12 years ago upon his apprehension as an alleged juvenile delinquent, does not merit the plenary review that we thought it might deserve at the time petitioner’s pro se petition for cer-tiorari was granted. 395 U. S. 903. The other claims tendered in such petition fare no better.
The further claim advanced by petitioner’s appointed counsel in this Court respecting the alleged unconstitutional application of N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:4-37 (b) has been raised for the first time upon this writ and the state courts have had no opportunity to pass upon it.
Accordingly we conclude that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted, without prejudice to any further appropriate proceedings below.
It is so ordered.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0