Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08175/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08175-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William A. Fry, a sentient human being,

Plaintiff, 

v.

United States, a Federal Corporation; the

Department of the Treasury; the Internal

Revenue Service; the Social Security

Administration; Northwestern Mutual

Life Insurance Co.; Defense Finance and

Accounting Service (DFAS); Public

Safety Personnel Retirement System

PSPRS); Title 26 U.S.C. § 6331 et. seq.;

Russell Nelson, in his official capacity;

and John Does 1 through 5 inclusively, 

 

 Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8175-PCT-MHM

 

ORDER

William Fry (“the Plaintiff”) has sued the federal government and several other 

defendants to quiet title to his real and personal property. He also seeks “return and

damages.” (Dkt. #1). The United States has moved to dismiss the case for lack of

jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Dkt. #29). 

The Court notes that the parties have referenced various materials outside of the

pleadings to support their respective Motion and opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

Evidence outside the pleadings cannot normally be considered in deciding a motion to

dismiss. See Farr v. United States, 990 F.2d 451, 454 (9th Cir. 1993). And although the

Case 3:07-cv-08175-MHM Document 43 Filed 09/16/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

United States also seeks to dismiss the motion pursuant to 12(b)(1) — for which it is

appropriate to consider evidence outside of the pleadings — it is fair to allow the Plaintiff to

obtain some limited discovery in order to oppose the Motion. Id. (noting also that where the

jurisdictional issue is intertwined with the underlying merits such that its resolution depends

on the resolution of the merits, the Court ought to employ the standard applicable to a motion

for summary judgment) (citation omitted).

The Court also notes that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the claims for

unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff’s social security is not well supported under the

deferential standard afforded to non-movants opposing a motion to dismiss. Accordingly,

principles of judicial economy dictate that the parties should engage in the discovery

necessary to convert the Motion to Dismiss on this issue into a motion for summary

judgment. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties be permitted to engage in limited discovery to

allow the Plaintiff to oppose the Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, to convert the

Motion into one for summary judgment. (Dkt. #29).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery be completed within sixty days of

this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty days of the conclusion of the

supplemental discovery period, the parties may file supplemental briefing with respect to

the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will at that point either decide the Motion to Dismiss

in accordance with the supplemental briefing, or alternatively, will convert it into a

motion for summary judgment. 

DATED this 15th day of September, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08175-MHM Document 43 Filed 09/16/08 Page 2 of 2