Bhatia v. United States Department of Homeland Security ( 2015 )

Case: 14-60780 Document: 00513067709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-60780
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 4, 2015
LAL BHATIA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:13-CV-199
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Lal Bhatia, federal prisoner # 97562-011, appeals the dismissal of his
complaint alleging violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq., and
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Separation of Powers
Doctrine. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-60780 Document: 00513067709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2015
No. 14-60780
We must raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Bhatia
named several federal agencies as defendants. The district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over Bhatia’s claims that these agencies violated
his constitutional rights because Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), does not provide a cause of action
against a federal agency. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 486 (1994). We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as modified to be for lack of
jurisdiction with respect to Bhatia’s constitutional claims against the federal
agencies.
We review do novo the district court’s dismissal of Bhatia’s Privacy Act
claims and constitutional claims against unnamed individual defendants. See
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The
district court correctly concluded that the records at issue are exempt under
the law enforcement exemption in § 552a(j)(2). The district court also correctly
concluded that Bhatia’s Privacy Act claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because a favorable decision in the instant case
would necessarily imply the invalidity of Bhatia’s convictions. Heck also bars
Bhatia’s constitutional claims against the unnamed individual defendants for
the same reason. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
2