reasons, plaintiff in this case fails to overcome defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). II. The Defendants’ Sovereign Immunity Defense The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars those suits against the United States that are not specifically waived by statute. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Council on Am. Islamic Reis., Inc. v. Ballenger, 366 F.Supp.2d 28, 32 (D.D.C.2005). Accordingly, claims against a government agent in his/her official capacity are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity unless the government specifically waives the immunity, or the actions of the government agent fall within an exception to the immunity rule. See Clark v. Library of Cong., 750 F.2d 89, 103-04 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff sues President Bush and
recognizing exceptions to immunity 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 holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine 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 plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official