William Jones while in State custody was interviewed by FBI Agent William Perrigan. Upon his release on bond from incarceration under the State charges, Jones was arrested by Perrigan pursuant to Dyer Act arrest warrants allegedly procured by Perrigan by execution of perjured affidavits in support thereof. The Dyer Act charges were dismissed at preliminary hearings for want of probable cause.
*83Jones initiated a pro se civil action against Perrigan seeking damages for alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dismissal was on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint come within the rule of immunity from civil liability of a public officer for any injury suffered as a result of acts having more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to the control and supervision of a public officer.
We disagree with the basis of the decision of the District Court. As a matter of public policy, certain officials are absolutely immune from liability for acts committed within the scope of their office, even if the acts were corrupt or malicious. See, e. g., Tenny v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376-377, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (legislators); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347-349, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871) (judges). The immunity of law enforcement officers from false arrest liability is a qualified one, in the nature of an affirmative defense. Immunity is available only if the officer acted in good faith with probable cause. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557-559, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). “This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen.” Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). The mere fact that Perrigan was an FBI agent does not per se establish his immunity from the claim of Jones. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 171 F.2d 571, 574 (7th Cir. 1948).
We are in agreement with the holding of the Second Circuit on remand in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 456 F.2d 1339, 1341 (1972):
“We have concluded and now decide and hold that it is a principle of federal law that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and other federal police officers such as Agents of the FBI performing similar functions, while in the act of pursuing alleged violators of the narcotics laws or other criminal statutes, have no immunity to protect them from damage suits charging violations of constitutional rights. We further hold, however, that it is a valid defense to such charges to allege and prove that the federal agent or other federal police officer acted in the matter complained of in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the arrest and search and in the necessity for carrying out the arrest and search in the way the arrest was made and the search was conducted.”
Jones’ complaint alleged that Perrigan acted “willfully, deliberately, wrongfully, knowingly, and illegally” and “without probable or reasonable cause.” These allegations, “however in-artfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Accord, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389-390, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Whether the defense of qualified immunity is available cannot be determined appropriately from the pleadings. Fine v. Paramount Pictures, supra, 171 F.2d at 574.
The District Judge denied Perrigan’s motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. This court is required to consider independently the question of jurisdiction and dismiss on its own motion if jurisdiction is lacking. Mansfield C. & L. M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884). Jones’ sole jurisdictional allegation invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This plainly is an incorrect basis for jurisdiction, since § 1983 is limited by its terms to the redress of actions under color of state law.
We hold that the court has no jurisdiction of this case under § 1983. However, the order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration of any amendments to the complaint *84which may be offered under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Bivens, supra, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619; Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).
Vacated and remanded.