Henry Anthony Williams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue et al

Filing 33

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order from Court's Calendar to Reconsider 30 ; Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Opposition to Amend the Complaint as Untimely 28 . Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its 5/16/2013 order, arguing that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was untimely, and that his pleadings should be construed liberally due to his status as a pro se litigant. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-7321 CAS (PLAx)

Title

HENRY ANTHONY WILLIAMS V. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 21, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE
ORDER FROM COURT’S CALENDAR TO RECONSIDER
(Filed May 17, 2013)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE OPPOSITION TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT AS UNTIMELY (Filed May 17,
2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of June 17, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 24, 2012 against the United States, the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and the California Franchise Tax
Board. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts tort claims against the United States and a claim
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). On April 19, 2013,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
which the Court granted in an order dated May 16, 2013. Dkt. #26.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its May 16, 2013 order, arguing that
defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was untimely, and
that his pleadings should be construed liberally due to his status as a pro se litigant. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Neither of these arguments provides a basis
for reconsideration, because the timing of defendants’ filings is not relevant to this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying case, and a liberal construction of
plaintiff’s filings does not change the Court’s conclusion that it lacks subject matter
CV-12-7321 CAS (PLAx) (05/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-7321 CAS (PLAx)

Date

May 21, 2013

Title

HENRY ANTHONY WILLIAMS V. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

jurisdiction over this case due to the manifest insubstantiality of plaintiff’s complaint.
See Dkt #26. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-12-7321 CAS (PLAx) (05/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2