What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
Green MILLER, Jr., Appellant v. Marion BARRY, Mayor, et al.
No. 82-1850.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1983.
Before TAMM, WALD and SCALIA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary affirmance as well as the response to the motion, it is
ORDERED by the Court that the motion to dismiss for lack of a final appealable order is denied. The District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action with respect to defendant Jack Vincent terminates the action below. It is
FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the alternative motion for summary affirmance is granted. The District of Columbia and its Mayor Marion Barry, cannot be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior either under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or in a Bivenstype action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Tarpley v. Greene, 684 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1982).
PER CURIAM:
We note that the complaint in the instant case contains an allegation that the police officer “was acting fully within the scope of his employment and pursuant to the policies of defendant corporation.”
In Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that although respondeat superior was not available as a basis for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability on the part of local government bodies, 436 U.S. at 664 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. at 2022 n. 7, local government units can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the alleged unconstitutional action “implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035.
The Supreme Court recently had occasion to review a complaint for the sufficiency of its allegations in this regard. In Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), the pro se plaintiff’s only reference to governmental policies was the “bald allegation that [Defendant] had injured him while acting pursuant to administrative ‘rules and procedures for ... handling criminal appeals’ and that [Defendant’s] employers were therefore responsible for [Defendant’s] actions.” 454 U.S. at 326, 102 S.Ct. at 453. The Court concluded that “even in light of the sympathetic pleading requirements applicable to pro se petitioners,” id., this allegation did not describe a constitutional tort actionable under § 1983, since “official policy must be the ‘moving force of the constitutional violation’ in order to establish liability of a governmental body under § 1983.” Id., citing Monell, supra 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. at 2037.
In the instant case, petitioner has made a similarly conclusory allegation. The mere assertion that the police officer “was acting fully within the scope of his employment and pursuant to the policies of defendant ...” is not specific enough to withstand dismissal. Petitioner pointed to no rule, procedure or policy of the District which would require or even permit the alleged unconstitutional actions. In other words, he failed to allege that his claimed constitutional harm was caused by a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision promulgated or adopted by [defendants].” Monell, supra at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035. Absent such allegation the complaint must fail.
TAMM, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing decision.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 55