UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) BRAD S. FRANCIS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-949 (RBW) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) ) BRAD S. FRANCIS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-3177 (RBW) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,1 ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs, Brad S. Francis and Christine C. Francis, proceeding pro se, initiated the above-captioned civil actions, Francis v. Internal Revenue Service (Francis I), Civ. Action No. 19-949, and Francis v. United States (Francis II), Civ. Action No. 19-3177, against the defendants, the United States of America; the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); Charles P. Rettig, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the IRS; Michael R. Sherwin, in his official capacity as the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia; and Sunita Lough, in her official capacity as the IRS Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement (collectively, the “defendants”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 1 Michael R. Sherwin is substituted for Jessie K. Liu as to the proper party defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). §§ 701–706 (2018); the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552; the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1–9834 (2018); and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amends. V & XIV. See First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief [ ], Francis I, Civ. Action No. 19-949 (“Francis I Compl.” or the “Francis I Complaint”) at 1, 26, ¶¶ 13, 16, 17; First Amended Complaint, Francis II, Civ. Action No. 19-3177 (“Francis II Compl.” or the “Francis II Complaint”) ¶¶ 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, 21. Currently pending before the Court are (1) the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss . . . the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Francis I, Civ. Action No. 19-949 (“Defs.’ 1st Mot. to Dismiss” or the “first motion to dismiss”); (2) the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Francis I, Civ. Action No. 19-949 (“Pls.’ Sanctions Mot.” or the “motion for Rule 11 sanctions”); and (3) the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Francis II, Civ. Action No. 19-3177 (“Defs.’ 2d Mot. to Dismiss” or the “second motion to dismiss”). Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions,2 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendants’ first and second motions to dismiss and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. 2 In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in rendering its decision: (1) the Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Francis I, Civ. Action No. 19-949 (“Defs.’ 1st Mot. to Dismiss Mem.”); (2) the Declaration of Joseph E. Hunsader in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Francis I, Civ. Action No. 19-949 (“Hunsader ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals