United States District Court, District of Columbia
ROBERT A. MCNEIL, et al., Plaintiffs,
G. MICHAEL HARVEY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE DOCUMENT NO. 5, 16, 18, 20, 21,
23, 26, 31, 37
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Moot Other
se plaintiffs in this case seek declaratory judgments
against three U.S. District Court judges and one U.S.
magistrate judge for alleged violations of their First and
Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs' interactions with
Defendants stem from their refusal to pay income taxes, which
has resulted in Plaintiffs' pursuit by the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”). Plaintiffs allege that
the IRS has been pretending to file substitute income tax
returns on their behalf and that through this “record
falsification program” the IRS has subjected them to
harsh penalties such as monetary fines and incarceration. In
response, Plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits against the
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the IRS, and
then against three of the judges who presided over such
cases. Defendants in this case are the U.S District Court and
U.S. magistrate judges who presided over ten of the
underlying cases. The judges dismissed or recommended
dismissal of the underlying cases as barred by the
Anti-Injunction Act, and in the case against the judges, for
lack of standing as well. Plaintiffs now seek a declaratory
judgment against Defendants acknowledging that Defendants
failed to adjudicate their cases on their merits, as
Plaintiffs believe they were constitutionally required to do.
have moved to dismiss this case under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) on five grounds, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs cannot
establish redressability, and therefore lack Article III
standing; (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a
Bivens action seeking equitable relief because
Bivens does not authorize suits seeking equitable
relief; (3) the Declaratory Judgment Act excludes matters
involving taxation; (4) the proper avenue for relief of
Plaintiffs' alleged grievances is through appeal; and (5)
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted because the court is not a reviewing court and
cannot provide the relief Plaintiffs seek. Because Plaintiffs
have failed to establish that they have Article III standing,
the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, because the Court
dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
the remaining motions pending in this case are denied as
case stems from a series of suits filed by Plaintiffs against
the IRS, DOJ, and other federal officials. Plaintiffs allege
that IRS employees used falsified digital records to pretend
to prepare substitute income tax returns on their behalf. Am.
Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 11. Plaintiffs claim that both the
IRS and the DOJ use the IRS's “record falsification
program” to enforce income tax law on nontaxpayers like
them. Id. ¶ 1. They believe that due to this
system, their property is being stolen and they are being
wrongly incarcerated. Id. Plaintiffs claim that, in
pursuing the underlying cases, the core factual contention
they sought to have confirmed was whether the IRS
“never actually prepares substitutes for [income tax]
returns, but rather inputs computer codes to make it appear
as though a substitute [income tax] return has been
filed.” Id. ¶ 2 (quoting Gov't Mot.
Consolidate Cases, Stanley v. Lynch, No. 17-cv-22,
ECF No. 11 (Mar. 8, 2017)). Citing Long v.
Rasmussen, Plaintiffs contend that
[t]he revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not
to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No.
procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course
of the law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and
they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the
Id. ¶ 2, n.1. In essence, Plaintiffs'
underlying cases revolved around a belief that the Internal
Revenue Code does not apply to them. These cases were
dismissed for lack of standing and failure to comply with the
Anti-Injunction Act. See Id. ¶ 3.
contend that no court has determined whether the
Plaintiffs' core allegation, raised in the underlying
cases, is true. Id. ¶ 3. Instead, they believe
that the defendant judges who presided over their cases
invariably fabricated and attributed to them forms of relief
they did not seek. Id. They believe that Defendants
also fraudulently drew each case within the prohibitions of
the Anti-Injunction Act to avoid making the factual
determination needed to adjudicate their cases. Id.
In short, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, acting as
federal judges, but whom Plaintiffs have sued in their
personal capacities only, participated in an IRS and DOJ
scheme by conspiring to dismiss their cases in a fraudulent
manner in order to avoid adjudicating their cases on their
actual merits. Id.
now seek a six-part declaratory judgment answering the
following questions in regard to each of the ten cases
1) Did the Plaintiff[s] complain, as their core fact
contention, that IRS never prepares substitute income tax
returns on any date shown in IRS' falsified Individual
Master File records concerning the targeted nontaxpayer?
2) Did the attorney appointed to adjudicate that core fact
controversy do so?
3) Did the attorney falsify the case record by attributing to
litigants relief they did NOT seek, i.e., that Plaintiffs
supposedly sought to enjoin IRS from preparing substitute
income tax returns, then dismiss the case (or recommend
dismissal) on the basis of that fabrication, thus drawing
each case, by fraud, within the ambit of Anti-Injunction Act
4) Does the uniform falsification by attorneys, of the
federal record in TEN separate fully-paid cases, provide
strong circumstantial evidence victims' cases, as filed,
5) Does the uniform falsification by attorneys, of the record
in TEN Class cases, violate each Plaintiff'[s] right to
adequate, effective and meaningful access to courts and to
due process of law, and constitute, as ...