Ibeagwa v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service)

Filing 110

ORDER deferring ruling on 80 Motion for Summary Judgment; deferring ruling on 87 Motion for Protective Order; denying 102 Motion to Vacate; denying 106 Motion for Court to take judicial notice in ruling on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's FOIA claim. Plaintiff may have until May 29, 2015, to file supplemental materials. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/15/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTIAN C. IBEAGWA,
OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-369-bbc
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Several motions are before the court in this case brought by pro se plaintiff Christian
Ibeagwa against defendant Internal Revenue Service: (1) plaintiff’s “motion to vacate” this
court’s May 4, 2015order granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated the Administrative Procedure Act and
his rights to equal protection of the laws and due process of law, dkt. #102; (2) defendant’s
motion for a protective order, dkt. #87; (3) defendant’s motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff’s claim under the Freedom of Information Act, dkt. #80; and (4) plaintiff’s “motion
for judicial notice,” dkt. #106.
I am denying plaintiff’s “motion to vacate” and “motion for judicial notice” because
they have no merit. However, I am staying a decision on defendant’s motion for summary
judgment to allow plaintiff to respond to new issues raised in defendant’s reply brief.
Because defendant’s motion for a protective order overlaps substantially with the motion for

1

summary judgment, I am staying a decision on the motion for a protective order as well.

OPINION
A. Motion to Vacate
In an order dated May 4, 2015, I granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings with respect to plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated his rights under the APA,
the equal protection clause and the due process clause by lying to him and causing him to
miss a tax deadline. I granted the motion for several reasons: (1) plaintiff failed to explain
how defendant’s alleged misrepresentation harmed him in light of his admission that the IRS
representative lied to him after his tax filing was due; (2) with respect to his equal protection
and due process claims, plaintiff failed to explain how defendant intentionally discriminated
against him and he did not identify what process he believed he was due but did not receive;
(3) with respect to his APA claim, plaintiff did not identify a “final agency action” by
defendant; (4) plaintiff did not identify any relief he wanted other than a production of
records, which is relief he could obtain under FOIA; (5) to the extent that plaintiff wanted
money damages (other than a tax refund, which plaintiff said he did not want), defendant
would be entitled to sovereign immunity.
In his “motion to vacate,” plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to conduct
discovery so that he can obtain evidence necessary to support his claims, but this argument
is misplaced. I granted defendant’s motion, not because plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient
evidence, but because he failed to state a claim in his complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,

2

plaintiff was required to conduct “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” before filing
a complaint. He is not entitled to discovery in order to help him file a complaint that meets
federal pleading standards. Once a plaintiff alleges enough facts to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, then he is entitled to conduct discovery. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (federal pleading standards require “enough fact[s] to
raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement”). Any
other rule would allow parties to file frivolous cases simply for the purpose of engaging in
burdensome discovery to obtain a settlement. Id. at 557-58 (“[S]omething beyond the mere
possibility of [a violation of the law] must be alleged, lest a plaintiff with a largely groundless
claim be allowed to take up the time of a number of other people, with the right to do so
representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value.”) (internal quotations
omitted).
In any event, even now plaintiff does not explain how discovery could help him
improve his complaint and he does not identify any additional allegations he could make
to cure the problems discussed by the court. Accordingly, I conclude that it would serve no
legitimate purpose to allow plaintiff to continue with these claims and I am denying his
“motion to vacate.”

B. Motion for Summary Judgment
With respect to his FOIA claim, plaintiff argues that defendant is withholding a tax
document that plaintiff says he filed in 2011. In particular, plaintiff is seeking a 2011 Form

3

4136, which relates to fuel tax credits. Defendant says that it has no record that plaintiff
ever filed the document. Thus, the issue on summary judgment is whether defendant
conducted a reasonable search for the document. Matter of Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 249 n. 11
(7th Cir. 1992).
In its opening brief, defendant explained the efforts it made to locate plaintiff’s
document. However, after plaintiff raised objections to the adequacy of the search in his
response brief, defendant described additional efforts it made in its reply. Because plaintiff
has not had an opportunity to respond to the question whether those efforts were adequate,
I am giving plaintiff an opportunity to file a surreply brief.

C. “Motion for Judicial Notice”
In a supplemental declaration filed with defendant’s reply brief, Patricia Williams, the
employee who conducted the search for plaintiff’s tax documents, averred that she
discovered “Mr. Ibeagwa’s 2011 Form 1040X, with attached Forms 4136 for earlier years.”
Dkt. #105, ¶ 5. Although Williams believed that the documents were not responsive to
plaintiff’s FOIA request because “the accompanying facsimile Forms 4136 were for earlier
tax years and not for tax year 2011,” id., defendant gave the documents to plaintiff anyway.
In his motion, plaintiff argues that Williams “perjured herself” in her declaration
when she stated that documents she discovered (and turned over to plaintiff) “were for
earlier tax years and not for tax year 2011.” I am denying this motion because plaintiff does
not explain how Williams’s perception on this issue is relevant to this case. To the extent

4

that plaintiff means to argue that the documents defendant turned over are in fact the
documents he is seeking under his FOIA request, then the case is now moot because plaintiff
has received everything he requested. Walsh v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d
535, 536 (7th Cir. 2005) (“In general, once the government produces all the documents a
plaintiff requests, her claim for relief under the FOIA becomes moot.”) (internal quotations
and omitted). If the documents are not related to plaintiff’s FOIA request, then any
statements Williams made about those documents have no bearing on plaintiff’s FOIA claim.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Christian Ibeagwa’s “motion to vacate,” dkt. #102, and “motion to take
judicial notice,” dkt. #106, are DENIED.
2. Plaintiff may have until May 29, 2015, to file supplemental materials in which he
addresses the following questions: (1) whether there are any documents identified in
plaintiff’s complaint that defendant has not yet produced; (2) if plaintiff believes that
defendant has not produced all requested documents, whether the search described in
Patricia Williams’s supplemental declaration, dkt. #105, was adequate and, if not, why not.
3. A decision on defendant’s motions for a protective order, dkt. #87, and for
summary judgment on plaintiff’s FOIA claim, dkt. #80, is STAYED until after May 29,
2015.
4. If plaintiff does not respond by May 29, 2015, I will resolve the remaining

5

motions on the current record.
Entered this 15th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

6