MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
In this action that has been filed pro se, plaintiff, a District of Columbia prisoner currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana, sues Stephen J. Husk, an examiner for the United States Parole Commission. In what is essentially a challenge to parole proceedings, plaintiff alleges that Husk “was wrongfully negligent in denying plaintiff parole” following his initial parole hearing on August 28, 1999, and claims that Husk violated his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Complaint at 1. Specifically, plaintiff allegеs that Husk erroneously relied on his prior convictions that are more than ten years old and overlooked “important information” he offered at the hearing. Complaint at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks $835,000 in damages and a new parole hearing or release to supervised parole. 1 Id at 7.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) on grounds of absolute or qualified immunity, improper service of prоcess, lack of per
II.
Plaintiff challenges Husk’s “faulty decision in determining plaintiffs сase.” Complaint at 4. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not decided the immunity question presented here, “[m]ost federal courts ... have consistently held that parоle board members are absolutely immune from suit for their decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parоle” because the board’s functions are “closely analogous to the adjudicated functiоns of a judge, or [ ] intimately associated with the judicial process itself.”
Walrath v. United States,
To the extent the complaint may be construed as a suit for damages against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (1994), the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. A tort claim against the United States for money damages must be “first presented ... to the аppropriate Federal agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
3
The exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictiоnal prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in federal court.
See GAF Corp. v. United States,
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the form of a new parole hearing or his release to supervised release. His remedy lies, if at all, in a writ of
habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).
See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
For the reasons statеd above, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss. 4
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [# 9] is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. This is a final appealable Order.
Notes
. Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for federal jurisdiction but that statute applies to state actors only. Actions alleging constitutional violations by federal officials are properly brought under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
. A lawsuit brought against a federal official in his officiаl capacity is deemed to be against the United States.
Mason v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit in Regular Active Service Acting in Their Official Capacities,
. The statute states in relevant part:
An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property оr personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employeе of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimаnt shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.
28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.