ORDER
The plaintiff’s claim, in its entirety, states:
On several occasions a written complaint alleging that my previous employ *29 er (i.e. Archer Daniels Midland Milling Co.) is in violation of law in their management of thе pension and welfare plan, as the authority holds that:
“[T]he Secretary [of Labor] shall investigate the complaint and ... bring civil action in any district court ... ”;
and thereby with the omission(s) of an employee of the United States government, nоt exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, hаs and continues to deny of at least one of the duties owed to me by “a gоvernment employee/agency.”
The relief which plaintiff seeks is an “[a]wаrd of $50.00 DOLLARS to the plaintiff, and grant the plaintiff whatever other relief that is fitting.” The reason that plaintiff claims entitlement to money damages is “[f]or injuries (personаl and otherwise) cause by the negligent or wrongful act and/or omission by an employee of the United States government while acting within the scope of his оffice or employment in an official capacity.”
This matter is beforе the Court pursuant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
I. Federal Tort Claims Act
The federal gоvernment, its agencies, and federal officials when sued in their official capacities, are absolutely shielded from tort actions for damages unless sovereign immunity has been waived.
See United States v. Testan,
First, the plaintiff has sued the wrong party. Thе FTCA directs that the exclusive remedy for tort claims is an action against the Unitеd States rather than against the individuals or the particular government agencies.
See, e.g., Miller v. United States,
Seсond, the instant complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff has premised liаbility against the defendant for allegedly failing to perform a duty required under fedеral law. The FTCA waives sovereign immunity only for a tortious violation of a duty imposed by state law:
[T]he district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims аgainst the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property, or negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government whilе acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstanсes where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the аct or omission occurred.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (emphasis added). The plaintiff does not base his FTCA claim upon any duty allegedly imposed by state law and accordingly, for this additional reason, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint must bе dismissed.
See, e.g., Baker v. F & F Investment Co.,
II. Writ of Mandamus
It also appears that the plaintiff may be seeking a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from this Court compelling the defendant to investigate the alleged
*30
wrоngdoing or mismanagement of plaintiff’s ERISA account by his former employer. However, the statutory section to which the plaintiff cites, 29 U.S.C. § 464(a), which establishes the рurported duty of the Secretary to investigate claims, pertains not to ERISA violations but is from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 401,
et seq.,
which has nothing to do with the plaintiffs asserted claim. The relevant ERISA provisions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a) & 1134(a), provides the Secretary with the
discretion
to invеstigate and bring suit with respect to a particular pension plan. It is well-settlеd that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel discretionary aсts.
See Dunlop v. Bachowski,
Accordingly, it hereby is
ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.