its consent, and this immunity extends to federal government agencies. Asociacion de Empleados del Area Canalera (ASEDAC) v. Panama Canal Com’n, 453 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir.2006). “[T]he existence of [the government’s] consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” Id. The Supreme Court has held, however, that federal officials may be sued in their individual capacities for violations of an individual’s constitutional rights. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. at 2005. While a plaintiff may bring a Bivens action against a federal officer in his individual capacity, a plaintiff may not bring a Bivens action against a federal agency or a federal officer acting in his official capacity. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71, 122 S.Ct. 515, 521-22, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) (<HOLDING>); F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486, 114
holding that bivens is solely concerned with deterring the unconstitutional acts of individual officers holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency holding that a plaintiff in a bivens action must allege that the individual defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation recognizing potential of bivens action for extraprocedural and unconstitutional actions by faa inspectors while acknowledging that a bivens action would be unavailable to challenge the faas attachment of condition notice to companys airplane