XU v. USA

Filing 13

PUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. No costs. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIGINAL
lJn tbt @nftr!

btstts [.ourt

of

folarsl

No. 13-261 T
(Filed: August 22. 201 3)

@lsimd

FILED
AUG

:t

* * *,*'* * *

:*

* *'t *

1.

**********

r( {(

**

*,1. :t :i.

:1.

{(

***

22

2013

*

HUAFENG XU,

,H;?rtf'u8Joo'fiu

*
*
*

Plaintiff,

Motion to Dismiss; RCFC l2(bX1);
28 U.S.C. $ 1500; Tohono;26 U.S.C.
$ 6512; pro se.

THE TINITED STATES,
Defendant.
*,1.

+,* * * * *

*'*

:* r.

***********

{.

*************

*

Huafens Xu, Morganville, NJ, p1q_99.
Bart D. Jeffress, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
SWEENEY, Judge
Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in plaintiff s complaint. For the reasons below, the
court grants defendant's motion and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff asserts that two individuals, who are allegedly employees of the Internal
Revenue Service ("IRS"), violated his civil rights and failed to obey various IRS regulations and
procedures. He also appears to allege that these individuals forged two notices of deficiency.
On April 11,2013, plaintifffiled a complaint in this court seeking various forms ofredress for
the alleged wrongdoing, including an apology, an investigation by the IRS, a refund for the
amount plaintiffpaid in response to the notices ofdeficiency, and compensation for personal
distress. The government moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule l2(bX1) of the Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims ('RCFC'), asserting defects with subject matter jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. $ 1500,
The United States Court ofFederal Claims shall not have jurisdiction ofany claim
for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other
court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time
when the cause ofaction alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect

thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the
United States.

Id. This court "has no jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has another suit for or in respect to
that claim pending against the United States or its agents." United States v. Tohono O'Odham
Nation, 131 S.Ct. 1723,1727 (2011). "Two suits are for or in respect to the same claim,
precluding jurisdiction in the [United States Court ofFederal Claims], ifthey are based on
substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit." Id. at 173 I .

Here,28 U.S.C. $ 1500 precludes jurisdiction. On December 20,2012, plaintiff filed a
complaint against the same individuals in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. See Huafene Xu v. Farkhanda Naqvi and Michelle Buskett,3:12-cv-07844-PGS-DEA.
On April 11,2013, plaintiff filed its complaint in this court. The alleged operative facts between
the federal district court lawsuit and this lawsuit are substantially the same. In both, plaintiff
claims that the same individuals, who are purportedly IRS employees, violated his civil rights in
connection with an unsigned audit letter, an alleged October 14,2011 incident at an IRS office in
New Jersey resulting in plaintiffs expulsion from that office, and two notices ofdeficiency
issued after the alleged incident. The federal district court suit was pending when plaintiff filed
his complaint in this court. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. $ 1500 deprives this court ofjurisdiction and
compels the dismissal of the complaint.
Moreover, even if 28 U.S.C. $ 1500 did not bar plaintiff s suit, the court would
nevertheless lack subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court ofFederal Claims is
precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over claims against individual federal officials, see.
g.&, Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,624 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and tort claims, see. e.e.,
Rick's Mushroom Serv.. Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Finally, to
the extent that the complaint can be construed to seek a refund of income tax, the court lacks
jurisdiction over any such tax refund claim because plaintiff must first file a refund claim with
the IRS, which plaintiffdoes not allege he filed. See 26 U.S.C. 5 7422(a); see. e.e., United
States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Min. Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2008).
Lastly, the court lacks jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. $ 6512(a), which states that when a
taxpayer contests a notice ofdeficiency in the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court"), the
taxpayer may not seek recovery in any other court. The IRS issued two notices of deficiency to
plaintiff and his spouse, which they timely disputed before the Tax Court. Accordingly, because
plaintifPs tax refund claim is for the same tax years in the notices ofdeficiency that he petitioned
to the Tax Court, the court lacks jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. $ 6512(a). While there are six
exceptions to the jurisdictional bar of26 U.S.C. $ 6512(a), plaintiffhas not alleged facts
suggesting that any apply.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and olaintiff s comolaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

-2-

The Cterk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

-3