for constitutional tort claims.” Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 8 (quoting Harris v. Holder, 885 F.Supp.2d 390, 397 (D.D.C.2012)). Defendants are also right in noting that although Plaintiffs reference 22 U.S.C. § 1623 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 throughout their complaint, see Compl. 5-9, neither statutory provision contains a waiver of sovereign immunity. Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 8. For their part, Plaintiffs point out only that their complaint does not contain the word “damages.” Mem. Supp. Pis.’ Resp. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 9, ECF No. 12. But Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that a complaint’s literal avoidance of the term “damages” compels a finding that the claim “seek[s] relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702; cf. Blue Fox, 525 U.S. at 263, 119 S.Ct. 687 (<HOLDING>). Both parties, however, overlook the fact that
holding also that the money in the hands of the sheriff for distributions was  created or at least made available by the efforts of counsel holding that action for lien seeks money damages because its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the government as compensation   holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money holding that the due process clause does not obligate the government to pay money damages