are alleged to be unconstitutional!.]” Clark v. Library of Cong., 750 F.2d 89, 102 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 690, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949) (reasoning that where a “statute or order conferring power upon the officer to take action in the sovereign’s name is claimed to be unconstitutional,]” “the conduct against which specific relief is sought is beyond the officer’s powers and is, therefore, not the conduct of the sovereign”). Here, Schonberg has not styled his suit as one against a government official, but rather as one against the United States. Even a liberal construction of his complaint does not yield a readily apparent officer or agency against whom or which he seeks specific relief. Cf. Clark, 750 F.2d at 102 (<HOLDING>). His claim, therefore, will be barred by
holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply