See Larson, 337 U.S. at 695, 69 S.Ct. 1457 (concluding that sovereign immunity bars suits challenging a government official’s decision, even if that decision was “based on an incorrect decision as to law or fact, if the officer making the decision was empowered to do so”). We need go no further. In accordance with the foregoing, we vacate the dismissal of the action on the merits and remand for the entry of an order dismissing the action, without prejudice, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. So Ordered. 1 . Although the instant action is also premised on the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that statute plainly does not operate as an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Progressive Consumers Fed. Credit Union v. United States, 79 F.3d 1228, 1230 (1st Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In view of this fact, the appellant’s
holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa recognizing that the declaratory judgment act does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity because it neither provides nor denies a jurisdictional basis for actions under federal law but merely defines the scope of available declaratory relief citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted