Larson v. Central Intelligence Agency
[link to ca.findacase.com]
D. The Eighth Amendment does not apply

The Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment applies only to convicted prisoners. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Although Larson claims that he has been placed in custody at times in the past, his current claims do not arise under the Eighth Amendment because he is not a convicted prisoner. Therefore, the Second Cause of Action is recommended to be DISMISSED.

E. Federal agencies and federal employees who act in their official capacities are not amenable to suit.

The United States is immune from suit unless it has waived its sovereign immunity and consents to be sued. See, e.g., United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941); United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 500-501 (1940); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against the United States, and dismissal is required. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir. 1982). A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied; rather, it must be unequivocally expressed.

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980).

An action brought against a federal agency, such as the CIA or the Bureau of Prisons, is effectively one brought against the United States. See, e.g., Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963). As an agency of the United States, the CIA and the BOP possess the same sovereign immunity as the United States. Therefore, neither agency can be sued absent an express waiver of that immunity. State of Neb. ex rel. Dep't. of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1998).

The sovereign immunity doctrine applies with equal force to suits against a federal employee in his official capacity. "It has long been the rule that the bar of sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming officers and employees of the United States as employees." Gilbert, 756 F.2d at 1458. "The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter." State of Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963). "When an action is one against named individual defendants, but the acts complained of consist of actions taken by defendants in their official capacity as agents of the United States, the action is in fact one against the United States." Atkinson v. O'Neill, 867 F.2d 589, 590 (10th Cir. 1989).

Although Plaintiffs take pains to identify defendants Panetta, Holder, Gonzales, Kappes and Bush in their individual capacities, the Court finds that the acts complained of are, in fact, actions taken in their official capacities. Thus, as to each of these defendants, the CIA and the BOP, the Court recommends that the matter be DISMISSED based upon sovereign immunity.