Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

Thomas A. Callan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner;

Treasury, Department of; United States

Tax Court, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-1024-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (5) and (6). Dkt. #15. Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike

Defendants’ motion (Dkt. #21), a motion for production of documents (Dkt. #22), a “Motion

to Rule for Plaintiff” (Dkt. #25), and a motion to amend his “Motion to Rule for Plaintiff.”

Dkt. #26. Defendants, in turn, have filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s “Motion to Rule for

Plaintiff” and motion to amend. Dkt. #28. The Court has reviewed the memoranda filed by

the parties. Dkt. ##15, 20-23, 25-28. For reasons discussed below, the Court will grant

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny the remaining motions as moot.

I. Background.

In 2005, Plaintiff submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

to the IRS National Disclosure Office in Washington, D.C., and to Campus Disclosure

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 35 Filed 02/21/07 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 -

Offices in Fresno, California; Oakland, California; and Ogden, Utah. Dkt. #15, LambertDean Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff sought documents pertaining to his tax liability from 2000-2005,

including certain Treasury Department Orders, all personal tax documents related to Plaintiff,

and documents regarding the general taxing authority of the federal government. Id. ¶ 4.

The Fresno Office responded to Plaintiff’s request, providing him with the requested

information to the extent possible and informing him of documents the IRS either did not

have or had no duty to provide, along with the means for obtaining certain tax documents

outside the FOIA process. Id. ¶ 5. The National Office disclosed two additional documents,

the Ogden Office did not process his claim because it was duplicative of the claim being

handled by the Fresno Office, and the Oakland Office closed out his request because it was

procedurally deficient. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. 

After receiving the responses to his FOIA requests, Plaintiff did not file an

administrative appeal. Id. ¶ 9. Apparently believing the Defendants’ responses to be

insufficient, however, Plaintiff filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court on November 30, 2005,

which was dismissed for failure to state a claim on April 3, 2006. Dkt. #1, Ex. 101. Plaintiff

then filed a complaint in this Court entitled “Plaintiff Requests for the Production of

Documents and Information as Gauranteed [sic] Per FOIA[;] Plaintif [sic] Demands the

Defendant to State the Subject of the Alleged Tax and Answer the Following[;] Appeal of

US Tax Court Decision, Docet [sic] 22687-05S[;] Need for Writ of Prohibition to Prevent

the Taking of Property Without Valid Submission of Proof and Due Process.” Dkt. #11. 

II. Analysis.

Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1),

insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), and failure to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6). Dkt. #15. Their first argument is that Small Case decisions of the U.S. Tax Court

are not reviewable in any other court, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. §

7463(b). This is correct. Plaintiff’s tax court claim, 22687-05S, was a Small Case involving

a dispute of $50,000 or less, as identified by the “S” at the end of the case number. Dkt. #15

at 3. On April 3, 2006, Judge Lewis Carluzzo dismissed Plaintiff’s claim. Id., Ex. 101. To

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 35 Filed 02/21/07 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

- 3 -

the extent that the complaint in this case is an appeal of the Tax Court’s decision, the Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants next argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff

has not exhausted his administrative remedies. FOIA requires a plaintiff to exhaust

administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)-(a)(6), Hyman

v. MSPB, 799 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (overruled on other grounds by Irwin v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990)); United States v. United States District

Court, 717 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1983). Exhaustion is deemed to have occurred when a

plaintiff’s FOIA requests go unanswered, even if the plaintiff has not pursued all

administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C). Courts have interpreted the exhaustion

requirement the same as a subject matter jurisdictional requirement. See, e.g., Hymen, 799

F.2d at 1423. The Court must therefore determine whether Defendants responded to

Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to determine whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative

remedies. Because this is a fact-intensive inquiry under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court “may

review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss to a motion

for summary judgment.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

2004).

The Court has reviewed the record to determine the underlying basis for Plaintiff’s

claim that Defendants failed to respond to his FOIA requests. In his “Motion to Rule for

Plaintiff,” Plaintiff states that he was not born in the United States, but rather Connecticut,

and as such is not subject to the jurisdiction of the “bankrupt Corporation of the United

States.” Dkt. #25 at 3. Plaintiff believes that by using “ALL CAPS” for names on official

documents such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses, the United States has created

“straw men” or fictional people whom it uses to extract tax payments from individuals like

Plaintiff. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff argues that a “name written in ALL-CAPITAL-LETTERS is

not a sentient, flesh and blood human being. It is a corporation, fiction or deceased person.”

Id. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he actual bottom line of this is, All [sic] assets generated BY

and THROUGH my straw man account, BASED on my existence and personal value and

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 35 Filed 02/21/07 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

- 4 -

credit, BELONGS TO ME.” Id. Plaintiff believes he has zero tax liability. Dkt. #25 at 6.

He seeks “to move on in life without the molestation, frivolous, groundless and illegal

actions of the Defendant organization as they continue to kill the country and funnel monies

out of the economy of the United States of America under a guise.” Dkt. #11 at 5. 

Plaintiff has not pleaded that any FOIA requests went unanswered. His response

states that questions that were “easy to answer, have been avoided” (Dkt. #20 at 1), but he

fails to specify which responses he finds unsatisfactory. Plaintiff appears to be disappointed

in the extent of Defendants’ response, but that does not mean that Defendants have not

responded to his FOIA requests. It appears Plaintiff would only be satisfied with documents

admitting that the United States does not have taxing authority over him. 

While Plaintiff may object to what he considers a lack of responsiveness on the part

of Defendants, the record shows that Plaintiff’s FOIA requests were answered to the fullest

extent possible. The Fresno Campus Disclosure Office responded substantively to Plaintiff’s

requests on November 7, 2005. Dkt. #15, Lambert-Dean Decl. ¶ 5. The National Office

disclosed two additional Treasury Department Orders on two occasions – September 20,

2005 and November 1, 2005. Id. ¶ 6-7. The Ogden Campus Disclosure Office responded

on October 18, 2005 that it would not be processing Plaintiff’s request because it was

identical to the request already being handled through the Fresno office. Id. ¶ 8. 

Defendants provided Plaintiff with all the documents to which he was entitled under

FOIA, and disclosed the reasons they could not provide certain documents and alternate

avenues for Plaintiff to obtain many of those documents. Id. ¶ 5. Additionally, Defendants

explained that they were under no obligation to justify or explain the Government’s taxing

authority to Plaintiff. Id. “FOIA neither requires an agency to answer questions disguised

as a FOIA request . . . or to create documents or opinions in response to an individual’s

request for information.” Hudgins v. Internal Revenue Service, 620 F.Supp. 19, 21 (D.D.C.

1985). “FOIA creates only a right of access to records, not a right to personal services.” Id.

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 35 Filed 02/21/07 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

1

The Court agrees with Defendants that neither the U.S. Tax Court, which is not

subject to FOIA, nor the IRS Commissioner, are proper defendants in this action. See

Lawrence v. C.I.R., No. 99-251 RT, 2000 WL 637351, *1 (C.D. Cal. March 2, 2000) (stating

that an individual officer is not a proper defendant in a FOIA action).

- 5 -

Finally, Plaintiff has not filed an administrative appeal pursuant to Treasury

Regulation 601.702(c)(10), a prerequisite to judicial review absent IRS unresponsiveness to

a FOIA request. Dkt. #15, Lambert-Dean Decl. ¶ 9. 

Finding that Defendants answered Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and that Plaintiff has

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.1

The Court will decline to address Defendants’ arguments regarding service of process and

failure to state a claim. The other motions filed by the parties will be denied as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #15) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. #21) is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to produce documents (Dkt. #22) is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to rule for Plaintiff (Dkt. #25) is denied.

5. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. #26) is denied.

6. Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. #28) is denied.

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.

 DATED this 20th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 35 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 5