Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The dismissal is without prejudice. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 31, 2007. (lcesh1)

Download PDF
SCOTT et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc. 3 Case 1:07-cv-01529-ESH Document 3 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________ ) ROBERT SCOTT, et al., Civil Action No. 07-01529 (ESH) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Robert Scott and Linda Casoria-Scott ("the Scotts") have filed a pro se complaint alleging errors by the Internal Revenue Service and seeking damages under 26 U.S.C. 7433. Upon review of the complaint, it is apparent that the claims alleged therein are substantially similar to the claims raised by "dozens of individuals across the nation who have submitted (in a pro se capacity) boilerplate filings to this Court." Jaeger v. United States, No. 06-625, 2006 WL 1518938, at *1 (D.D.C. May 26, 2006). These cases are routinely dismissed owing to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. It is now well established that the exhaustion requirement of 7433 is "technically nonjurisdictional," and that dismissals for failure to exhaust should be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Jaeger, 2006 WL 1518938, at *1. Nevertheless, as the Honorable John D. Bates has explained: "Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor any federal statute expressly prohibits sua sponte dismissals for failure to state a claim," nor does any decision of the Supreme Court render this an improper course of action. Where . . . [a] failure to state a claim is patent, "it is practical and fully consistent with plaintiffs' rights and Case 1:07-cv-01529-ESH Document 3 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 2 the efficient use of judicial resources" for the Court to dismiss the action sua sponte. Id. (quoting Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Here, because the Scotts have failed to allege that they exhausted their administrative remedies, it is clear from the face of their complaint that they have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Stockwell v. United States, 450 F. Supp. 2d 93, 95 (D.D.C. 2006) ("The Court finds that by failing to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by Section 7433, plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted."). Moreover, since the Scotts' previous 7433 suit was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutorily mandated exhaustion requirement, they cannot plausibly claim ignorance of that requirement or of their present complaint's patent deficiency.1 See Scott v. United States, 416 F. Supp. 2d 116, 119 (D.D.C. 2006). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). /s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge DATE: August 31, 2007 Any claim of ignorance would be further undermined by the fact that this Court has twice refused to reconsider the dismissal of the Scotts' previous suit. See Scott v. United States, No. 05-02043, Order (D.D.C. May 9, 2007); Scott v. United States, No. 05-02043, 2007 WL 1792293, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2007). 2 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?