BRENNAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin P. Brennan (“Brennan”) appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Brennan sued the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) for allegedly violating his constitutional rights in connection with his conviction for securities fraud. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) de novo. See Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Under § 1915(e)(2), a district court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We afford a pro se litigant “special solicitude” by interpreting the pro se complaint “to raise the strongest claims that it suggests.” Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted).

Brennan argues that the District Court erred in holding that the DOJ, SEC, and FBI were immune from suit. The District Court correctly held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars lawsuits for damages against federal agencies, unless immunity is waived. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). To the extent that Brennan intends to argue that this immunity is waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80, Brennan failed to allege that he satisfied the preconditions necessary for such waiver, including filing “an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency before suing for relief in federal court.” Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2004). Additionally, to the extent that Brennan intends to bring claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), such claims cannot be brought against federal agencies. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Accordingly, the District Court did not err in finding that the DOJ, SEC, and FBI were immune from Brennan’s lawsuit and dismissing the complaint.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Brennan on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the June 28, 2018 judgment of the District Court.