Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01957/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01957-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Darrell James Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DNA Medical Staffing, LLC, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1957-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Defendants DNA Medical Staffing, LLC,

David Nguyen, and Angelica Nguyen’s Motion to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of

Process, (Dkt.#13), Defendants Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration (“the Federal Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction, (Dkt.#22), and Plaintiff Darrell James Hill’s Motion for Default Judgment as

to DNA Medical Staffing, (Dkt.#11), Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, (Dkt.#12),

Motion for FRCP Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, (Dkt.#16), Emergency MOTION for

Declaratory Judgment, (Dkt.#17), and Motion for Extension of Time for Response for Not

Getting Dkt. #24, (Dkt.#26). After reviewing the record and determining oral argument

unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order. 

Plaintiff Darrell James Hill brought this lawsuit against DNA Medical Staffing, LLC,

the Secretary of the Treasury as representative of the Internal Revenue Service, the Social

Case 2:09-cv-01957-MHM Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Security Administration Commissioner as representative of the Commissioner for the Social

Security Administration, David Nguyen, and Angelica Nguyen. Hill’s claims arise out of

allegations that DNA Medical Staffing, LLC, David Nguyen and Angelica Nguyen, who are

private employers or agents of a private employer, violated Plaintiff Hill’s various federal

statutory and constitutional rights by requiring him to submit a social security number as part

of the hiring process. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that being forced to carry a social security

number is akin to carrying the “mark of the beast,” and that by forcing Hill to use a social

security number in the context of employment, both the private and federal Defendants have

violated his rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Free

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb through 2000bb-4 (“RFRA”).

Plaintiff requests relief in the form of damages totaling $500,000.00, an injunction and a writ

of mandamus preventing the federal government from enforcing the federal statutes requiring

Plaintiff to obtain and use a social security number in the context of employment.

Hill’s substantive claims are hardly novel. Federal courts have seen a number of

challenges to the mandatory provision of social security numbers by individuals who believe

that social security numbers are the “sign of the beast” or otherwise run counter to religious

precepts; none of these challenges have been successful. See Sutton v. Providence ST. Joseph

Med. Hosp. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999); Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.

1999). In fact, the instant lawsuit is virtually identical to two lawsuits Hill has filed before

other Judges in the District of Arizona, Hill v. Promise Hospital of Phoenix, Inc., No. CV09-1958-PHX-JAT and Hill v. Premier Healthcare Services, LLC, No. CV09-1956-PHX-DGC. In Hill v. Premier Healthcare Services, Judge David G. Campbell

conclusively addressed several of Hill’s substantive allegations. Judge Campbell, in ruling

on a motion to dismiss filed by a would-be private employer of Hill, dismissed with prejudice

the claims Hill had made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RFRA and Title VII related to the use of

a social security number as part of the company’s hiring process. See Hill v. Premier

Healthcare Services, No. CV-09-1956-PHX-DGC, (Dkt.#16). As Judge Campbell noted,

Case 2:09-cv-01957-MHM Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 5
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

1

In Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1999),

a hospital did not hire the plaintiff after he refused to provide his social security number

during the hiring process because he believed that a social security number is the “mark of

the beast” prophesied in the Book of Revelations, Chapters 13 and 14. Id. at 830-31. The

plaintiff sued the hospital claiming, among others, violations of Title VII, RFRA and the First

Amendment. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that under federal law, all employers are

required to withhold ceratin income taxes and social security taxes, and submit a report to

the Internal Revenue Service as to each individual employee, and that such reports require

identification of the employee by social security number. The court held that an employer is

not liable under Title VII when accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs would

require the employer to violate federal or state law. Because requiring the hospital to

accommodate the employee by waiving the mandatory provision of a social security number

would lead the hospital to violate federal and state laws, it would cause “undue hardship” as

a matter of law. 

- 3 -

“[t]he Ninth Circuit has clearly held that an employer . . . does not violate Title VII, and does

not become a state actor for purposes of § 1983 or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,

when it complies with state and federal tax withholding requirements [and requires an

employee or job applicant to produce a social security number]. Sutton v. Providence St.

Joseph Medical Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1999).” See id. at Dkt.#24, p. 2.1 Because

the legal duties owed by DNA Medical Staffing, LLC, David Nguyen, and Angelica Nguyen

are indistinguishable from those owed by the private defendants in Hill v. Premier Healthcare

Services, the Court sees no reason to depart from the Judge Campbell’s well reasoned Order,

which determined that Hill’s claims against a would-be employer lacked legal merit. As

such, Hill’s claims against DNA Medical Staffing, LLC, David Nguyen, and Angelica

Nguyen fail as a matter of law. Because the allegations raised against these private

Defendants lack a cognizable legal theory, the Court see no reason to address any of the

issues related to Plaintiff Hill’s allegedly unsuccessful attempt to serve process upon DNA

Medical Staffing, LLC, David Nguyen, and Angelica Nguyen. 

With respect to Hill’s claims against the Federal Defendants, to survive a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Hill’s “complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Case 2:09-cv-01957-MHM Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 5
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

In addition, the Court notes that Hill’s request for the Court to issue an injunction and

writ of mandamus preventing the Federal Defendants or their agents from enforcing federal

laws requiring Hill to obtain and use a social security number in the employment context is

barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421. See Hansen v. Dep’t of Treasury, 528

F.3d 597, 600-02 (9th Cir. 2007) (“the Anti-Injunction Act precludes federal jurisdiction .

.. unless [a plaintiff] is able to satisfy the judicially created exception to the Act by

demonstrating (1) irreparable injury if his case is not heard, and (2) certainty of success on

- 4 -

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals . . . supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. After carefully reviewing Hill’s

Amended Complaint, the Court notes that it is not altogether clear what specific factual

allegations Hill has raised against the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration. When construed in the light most favorable to Hill, the

claims contained in the Amended Complaint against the Federal Defendants appear to be no

more than general objections—based on Hill’s religious beliefs—to being assigned a social

security number by the federal government, as Hill’s Amended Complaint is replete with

arguments that mandating social security numbers violates the First Amendment along with

a myriad of federal statutes. 

Assuming Hill’s claims against the Federal Defendants are best characterized as

general objections to the mandatory assignment and use of a social security number, these

types of arguments have been foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bowen v. Roy, 476

U.S. 693 (1986). In Bowen, the High Court rejected an attempt to prevent the government

from requiring the issuance of a social security number, reasoning that “[t]he Free Exercise

Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal

affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens,” and concluding

that an individual “may no more prevail on his religious objection to the Government’s use

of a Social Security number . . . than he could on a sincere religious objection to the size or

color of the Government’s filing cabinets.” Id. at 699-700. In light of the holding of Bowen,

Hill’s claims against the Federal Defendants must be similarly rejected as lacking legal

merit.2

Case 2:09-cv-01957-MHM Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 4 of 5
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 the merits.”). 

- 5 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with

prejudice and directing the Clerk to close this case and enter judgement accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot all of the pending Motions that have

been filed by Plaintiff Darrell James Hill or Defendants DNA Medical Staffing, LLC, David

Nguyen, Angelica Nguyen, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration. (Dkt.##11,12,13,16,17,22,26.)

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01957-MHM Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 5 of 5