as participant or beneficiary of the plan for benefits due or to enforce the terms of the plan. Thus, subsection (1)(B) of § 1132(a) is inapplicable: Nor did Toumajian, as a participant or beneficiary of an ERISA plan, assert that Frailey was an administrator of the plan who failed to provide him with benefits information. Accordingly, subsections (1)(A) and (4) of § 1132(a) are inapplicable. Nor does he seek relief as a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary to enjoin any act or obtain other equitable relief to redress any violations or enforce any provisions of ERISA. Toumaji-an’s claim seeks only compensatory money damages for professional malpractice; he does not seek any type of injunctive or equitable relief. See McLeod v. Oregon Lithoprint Inc., 102 F.3d 376, 378 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1823, 137
holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of  1132a3 holding that compensatory money damages are generally distinct from equitable forms of relief such as injunctions or back pay holding that justiciability must be analyzed separately on the issues of money damages and the propriety of equitable relief holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief