Court Opinion

ID: 9903747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:02:12.226425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:41.850305
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5182                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                     1:23-cv-01970-UNA
                                                      Filed On: November 27, 2023
Derek N. Jarvis,

             Appellant

      v.

Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General,

             Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:        Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief 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 25, 2023 be
affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case because appellant has not
asserted that the sole defendant acted under color of state law, as required for a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.”). Additionally, the district court correctly concluded
that, to the extent appellant’s complaint could be construed as asserting a claim under
the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), such a claim would be barred. To the extent
appellant asserted claims against the defendant in his official capacity, the defendant is
entitled to sovereign immunity unless that immunity is waived, and the FTCA does not
waive sovereign immunity for constitutional torts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); F.D.I.C. v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“[T]he United States . . . has not rendered itself liable
under § 1346(b) for constitutional tort claims.”); Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d
89, 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stating that, absent a waiver, sovereign immunity bars suits for
damages against federal officials in their official capacity). And appellant has failed to
allege any particularized conduct on the part of the defendant that could give rise to a
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5182                                                September Term, 2023

claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (holding that “vicarious liability is
inapplicable to Bivens,” and a plaintiff asserting a Bivens claim “must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated
the Constitution”). Moreover, appellant has forfeited any argument as to his claims
arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 2000a. See United States ex rel. Totten v.
Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that
parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”).

        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