Opinion ID: 164991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against the FBI.

Text: Roberts sought mandamus relief in the district court in the form of an order directing the FBI to investigate and stop what she characterized as New Mexico’s unlawful detention of the Child, and she named Thomas Kuker, Special Agent in Charge, Albuquerque Division of the FBI, as a defendant. Roberts based her -13- claim for mandamus relief on 28 U.S.C. § 533, 7 claiming that “[t]he F.B.I. has an affirmative duty under [§ 533] to act to investigate and to halt the ongoing violation of federal criminal statutes . . . by Defendants Hartz and Douglas in continuing to hold [the Child].” Aplt. App. at 38, ¶ 68. Because Roberts’ claim for mandamus relief could be asserted against Agent Kuker only in his official capacity, the district court concluded that Roberts was “essentially suing the United States, which has sovereign immunity to suit unless it has consented to be sued.” Id. at 174. Further, the court concluded that § 533 “does not contain language that could be construed as an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity for a private citizen’s legal action against Agent Kuker for electing not to investigate a certain matter.” Id. at 175. The court therefore determined that the United States’ sovereign immunity barred Roberts’ claim for mandamus relief, and the court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. We agree with the district court’s analysis. We also note that the sole argument advanced by Roberts in this appeal in support of her claim for mandamus relief is that she should be granted leave to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Agent Kuker under 5 U.S.C. § 701. See Aplt. Br. at 31. Roberts’ reliance on § 701 is misplaced, however, because she failed to raise 7 In relevant part, § 533 provides that the United States Attorney General may appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 533(1). -14- § 701 in the district court proceedings, and she has not articulated a reason for us to depart from the general rule that “a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed on below.” Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). Moreover, regardless of whether 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 provide federal district courts with jurisdiction to review actions of federal agencies in certain administrative contexts, 8 these statutes do not provide any basis for mandamus relief in this case. The initiation of a criminal investigation by the FBI is a discretionary act, and the federal courts do not have the power to grant mandamus relief with respect to discretionary acts of FBI officers. See Jafree v. Barber , 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). As a result, it would be futile to grant Roberts leave to amend her complaint. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We also GRANT: (1) the motion to supplement the record that Roberts filed on September 24, 2003; and (2) the motion to add a document to the supplemental appendix that defendants filed on October 29, 2003. Entered for the Court Timothy M. Tymkovich