Stacy Abram v. Dept. of Agriculture ( 1999 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-3256
___________
Stacy Abram, Jr., *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Department of Agriculture, (Sued as * Eastern District of Arkansas.
United States of America), *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: September 6, 1999
Filed: September 27, 1999
___________
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Following entry of judgment in his civil suit against the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Stacy Abram, Jr. appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 damages claim. We affirm the dismissal of this claim because Mr.
Abram may not seek such relief against USDA, a federal agency, under section 1983.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (§ 1983 plaintiff must show alleged
1
The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
deprivation of constitutionally protected right was committed by person acting under
color of state law); Hindes v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 137 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir.
1998) (finding no authority to support conclusion federal agency is “person” subject
to § 1983 liability, whether or not in alleged conspiracy with state actors); Davis v.
United States, 439 F.2d 1118, 1119 (8th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (“By its plain language
the statute does not authorize redress against the United States.”); cf. Will v. Michigan
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 71 (1989) (neither state, nor its officials acting
in their official capacities, are “persons” under § 1983). Mr. Abram’s claim, even if
construed as one brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), still fails because Bivens also is not a basis upon
which to sue a federal agency and Mr. Abram did not name any individuals as
defendants. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994)
(refusing to extend Bivens to federal agencies and noting individual must be named as
defendant under Bivens). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-