UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEREK N. JARVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01970 (UNA) ) ) LOUIS DEJOY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant the IFP application

and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. See

(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues the Postmaster General pursuant to

, 1982, 1983, and 2000a. He alleges that, on July 20, 2021, an employee, identified only

as “Morgan,” discriminated against him and violated his constitutional rights by denying him

service at the United States Post Office, located at 5636 Connecticut Ave N.W., Washington, D.C.

First, the Court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1981 claims. “[T]he

protection offered under

is limited in its scope,” and “applies only to

‘nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.’” Marcus v. Geithner,

(D.D.C. 2011) (citing

(c)). “The statute does not apply

to actions taken under color of federal law.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1981 claims cannot be raised against a federal instrumentality or its officials. See

(citing Kizas v. Webster,

, 541–43 (D.C. Cir. 1983)); see also DynaLantic Corp. v. Dep’t of Defense,

(D.D.C. 2012); accord Turner v. Shinseki,

, 113 n.15 (D.D.C. 2011).

Second, plaintiff’s § 1983 claims similarly cannot be maintained against the United States,

its agencies, or their officers, because “[s]ection 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting

under color of federal law.” Settles v. United States Parole Comm’n,

(D.C.

Cir. 2005); see also Bundy v. Sessions,

(D.D.C. 2019) (same).

Third, and likewise, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq., does not waive immunity against the

federal government, its agencies, or its officials, just as “42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985 and 1986

‘by their terms, do not apply to actions against the United States.’” Zhu v. Gonzales, No. 04-1408,

, at *5 (D.D.C. May 8, 2006) (quoting Hohri v. United States,

,

245 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds,

(1987)); Biase v. Kaplan,

(D.N.J. 1994) (“[N]either § 1985 nor any other provision of the Civil Rights Act

may provide the basis for an action against the United States or a Federal agency.”)); see Jones v.

Nat’l Council on Disability,

, 100–01 (D.D.C. 2014) (same), aff’d, No. 14–5244,

(D.C. Cir. Feb. 5, 2015).

Fourth, liberally construing plaintiff's constitutional tort claims outside of the Civil Rights

Act would be futile. As noted, the United States, and its officers if sued in their official capacity,

are “immune from suit save as it consents to be sued[.]” United States v. Sherwood,

,

586–87 (1941). Because Congress has not waived the federal government’s sovereign immunity

with respect to constitutional torts, the United States and its officers are generally immune from

such a lawsuit under any interpretation. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,

(1994) (holding

that the United States may not be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a constitutional tort). Although a federal agent may be sued in his or her individual capacity for a constitutional

tort under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971),

plaintiff makes no reference to Bivens in his complaint. And, while plaintiff makes a passing

reference to a potential “individual capacity” claim, he then fails to provide any specifics regarding

same. He has sued only the Postmaster General, and the complaint contains no specific factual

allegations of conduct violative of the plaintiff's federal civil rights that could be directly traced to

the sole defendant.

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: 7/25/2023 United States District Judge