Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04458/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04458-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HENSHALL, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CENTRAL PARKING INC.; NEW SOUTH

PARKING, INC.

Defendants. /

No. C-07-4458 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 12 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on October 19, 2007. Pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without

oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. Having read and considered the arguments presented by

the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion and

dismisses the action with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in San Mateo

Superior Court. The case was removed to this court on August 28, 2007. 

Plaintiff, a prospective employee of defendants, challenges defendants’ policy of requiring

plaintiff to complete certain forms prior to the commencement of employment, namely: an Internal

Case 3:07-cv-04458-SI Document 13 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Revenue Service form W-4, and a Department of Homeland Security form I-9. Plaintiff asserts that such

a requirement violates his rights under the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks various forms of

declaratory relief which would exempt plaintiff from complying with the tax and immigration laws of

the United States.

Defendants move this Court to dismiss plaintiff’s action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. In the alternative, defendant moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(e), arguing that the complaint is so vague that defendant cannot reasonably be

required to frame a responsive pleading.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question presented by a motion to dismiss

is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer

evidence in support of the claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 104 S. Ct. 3012 (1984).

In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d

556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's primary assertion is that he is not a citizen of the United States, and therefore not

subject to federal laws relating to taxes, immigration and naturalization. Plaintiff alleges in his

Case 3:07-cv-04458-SI Document 13 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

complaint that he was born in the State of Maryland. Plaintiff's argument that he is not a citizen of the

United States subject to its laws has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. See, e.g., United States v.

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991).

Similarly, plaintiff's other arguments have been previously raised and rejected by the courts:

plaintiff's provision of a W-4 to a prospective employer is mandatory, Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d

398, 401 (9th Cir. 1981); plaintiff is an “employee” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, United

States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985); the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination does not allow plaintiff to refuse to provide his social security number and such other

information as required by IRS Form W-4 and DHS Form 1-9 to a prospective employer or employer,

United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 1980); and there is no constitutional right to a

position of private employment, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578 (1972). 

Further, the courts have routinely upheld an employer's right to terminate an employee or

otherwise not hire a prospective employee who refuses to provide a valid social security number or such

other information as is required by an IRS Form W-4 or DHS Form 1-9. See, e.g., Sutton v. Providence

St. Joseph Med. Gtr., 192 F.3d 826, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1999); Cassano v. Garb, 436 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.

2006); Seaworth v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1056, 1057-58 (8th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff is in effect asking this Court to order defendants to disregard their duties under federal

law. This Court refuses to do so. See Yisrael v. Per Scholas, Inc., 93 A.F.T.R.2d 2004-1708 (S.D.N.Y.

2004). Because plaintiff is a citizen of the United States subject to its laws, this Court finds that

plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that no amendment to

plaintiff's complaint would result in a cognizable cause of action. For this reason, the Court need not

address defendants’ alternative motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(e).

Case 3:07-cv-04458-SI Document 13 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, defendants’ motion is GRANTED

(Docket No. 4). Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04458-SI Document 13 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 4