Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Plaintiff asserted constitutional violations by United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and individual federal agents in their official and individual capacities, alleging a terrorist campaign against him that included home invasions, car invasions, and chemical plantings in his food. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, J., dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) agencies, and individual defendants in their official capacities, were immune from the suit, and (2) allegations did not support an action against the agents in their individual capacities.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Geral Wayne Sosbee appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his action with prejudice and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Sosbee's action alleged that defendants waged a terrorist campaign against him that included home invasions, car invasions, and chemical plantings in his food. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals of complaints without leave to amend. Whittington v. Whittington,
Page 927.
733 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.1984). We review for abuse of discretion a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing Sosbee's claims against the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the individual defendants in their official capacities because agencies of the United States and federal agents in their official capacities are immune from suit for constitutional violations. See Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court did not err in dismissing Sosbee's claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities because Sosbee did not allege their personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or a sufficient causal connection between their wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sosbee's motion for a preliminary injunction. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 634 (9th Cir.1998).
Sosbee's remaining contentions are considered and rejected.
AFFIRMED.