# ORIGINAL lln tbe 

# @nrteD 

# btutes

# {.ourt of

# felersl @lsimg No. 

### l3-511T Filed: July 23, 2014 

### ***** *,r*+** 

### ***:i**:t * * :+* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * :i* 

# FILED

* Pro Se; 

# * Subpoena Duces Tecum; 

# * RCFC 56(d) (when discovery is 

# * required to defeat a motion 

### for 

# * summary judgment).



## ; *** *** *** *** **,t 

### *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

### REGARDING SUBPOENA DUCES 

### TECUM 

# I. RELEVANT FACTS 

### AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. OnJuly 25, 2013, 

### Plaintiff filed, a

### pro se Complaint in the United StatesCourt 

### of Federal 

### Claimsthat, liberatly construed,' alleges:

### (1) 

### a claim

### for 

## "civil damages 

### for unauthorized collection practices[,] pursuant to 

### 2[6] U.S.C. $7433" (Compl. 

### fl 26); and

### (2) atax refund claim under 

### 28 U.S.C.

### $ 1346(a)(1),

### for a $2,927.42 overpayment 

### oftax liabilities 

### for the 2010 tax 

### year. Compl. tf 20. On February 5,2014, the Government 

### filed anAnswer. 

### On 

### May 9,2014, Plaintifffiled a Motion For Subpoena Duces 

### Tecum ("P1. 

### Mot."), requesting the production

### of (a.)

## A[n] unredacted 

### copy 

## of the August

### 20, 2012 Memorandum 

### that is 

### address[ed]

## to JOE

### AUBIN from

## the Supervisory 

### Tax Examiner

## of the Department ofTreasury Intemal Service in Washington, D.C. 

## ' The pleadings

### of a

### pro se 

### plaintiff are held 

### to a less rigorous standard than those 

### of litigants represented 

### by counsel. See Hainesv. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519,520 (1972) (holding that 

### pro se complaints, "however 

### inartfully pleaded," are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). 

# , JUL,2 

### 3 2014 

### U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BENJAMIN WHITFIELD, Plaintiff,pro se,

THE 

### UNITED STATES, Defendant.

### (b.)

### Any E-mail andfaxes

### that were sent

### to and received

### fromthe IntemaL

Revenue Service conceming Federal Income 

### Tax Refund Check number 3158- 09872961 between August 

### 6th-20th, 2012. (c.)

### Any Investigative Reports 

### of the Florida Deparhnent 

### of Corrections that were 

### written asthe chronology 

### of investigative events pursuant 

### to Florida Department 

### of Corrections Procedure 203.015(2)(9) for the processing 

### of Federal Income Tax Checks belonging to an inmate. Pl. 

### Mot.2. On 

### May 19,2014, the Government 

### filed a Response 

### ("Gov't Resp."). On June 

### 2,2014, Plaintiff filed a Reply ("P1. Reply"). OnJuly 3, 2014, the Government 

### filed a 

### Motion For Summary Judgment 

### ("Gov't Mot.") arguing that the refund check intercepted bythe Intemal Revenue Service 

### ("IRS") that forms the basis

### of this lawsuit was erroneously issued, because 

### Plaintiff suppliedfalse wage 

### and tax 

### withholding information to the IRS on his 2010 tax 

### retum. Gov't 

### Mot. 1. On 

### July 18,2014, 

### Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion For Enlargement, seeking sixry (60) additional days

### to respond 

### to the Govemment's 

### July 3, 2014 

### Motion. On

### July 21,2014, the Govemment 

### filed a Response, stating that 

### it does not oppose 

### Plaintiff s requested enlargement. 

# II. DISCUSSION. 

## A. Plaintil?s Nlay 

### 9,2014 

### Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum. 

### After careful 

### review, the 

### court has concludedthat 

### Plaintiffs May 

### 9,2014 Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum must be denied, because none 

### of the requested discovery is relevant to any 

### of the claims alleged 

### in the July 

### 25,2013 Complaint that the United StatesCourt 

### of Federal Claims has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate. To the extent 

### Plaintiff asserts a claim under 26 U.S.C. $ 7433, that allows ataxpayer to 

### "bring a

### civil action 

### for damages against 

### the 

### United States 

### in q district court

### of the United States," 26 U.S.C. $ 7433 (emphasis added), the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction. See 

### Ledford

### v. United 

### States,297 

### F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002) (,,The Court 

### of Federal Claims is not a

### district court 

### of the United States, and therefore 

### it lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction

. . 

### . [under 26 U.S.C. $7433]."); see also Montagne

### v. United States, 90 Fed. 

### Cl. 41, 

### 48 (2009) 

### ("The United States 

### Court

### of Federal Claims has held that claims 

### for relief premised on alleged negligent, 

### wrongful, or unauthorized conduct 

### by the IRS are based 

### in tort and 

### not

### within the

### jurisdiction

### of this 

### court."); Russell

### v. United 

### States,78 Fed.

### Cl. 

### 2gl,2g7 (2007) ("Because 

### [section] 7433(a) grants exclusive

### jurisdiction over claims

## of damages stemmingfrom the unauthorized collection 

### of taxes to the United States district court,this court lacks

### jurisdiction to hear 

### plaintif8s case.").

### To the extent the

### July 

### 25,2013 Complaint alleges a 

### claim 

### for a

### tax refund, the United

States 

### Court

## of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction 

## to adjudicate 

### that

## claim. See

### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1346(a)(1) 

### (providing thatthe 

### "district courts shall have original 

### jurisdiction, concurrent 

### with the United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims, 

### of

. . . [a]ny 

### civil action againstthe United States

### for recovery 

### of any internal-revenue 

### tax alleged 

### to have been erroneously

### or illegally assessed or 

### collected"). But, none 

### of the information requested 

### in Plaintiffs May 

### 9,2014 Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum 

### is relevant 

### to "the exact 

### dollar amount 

### towhich 

### [Plaintiff] is entitled." 

### Mo. Pqc. 

## R. Co.

## v. United States, 

### 168 

### Ct. 

## Cl. 86, 

### 90 (1964) (requiring 

## a raxpayer to 

### "affirmatively show that he has overpaid his taxes



### . . 

### . .

### [by] proving the exact 

### dollar amount to 

### which 

### he 

## is entitled"); see 

### also RCFC 

### 26(b)(l) (defining discoverable 

### marerial 

### as ,,any 

### nonprivileged matter 

### that 

### is relevant 

### to a 

### party's claim 

### or defense"). Likewise, none 

### of the 

### information requested 

### is relevant 

### to whether 

### the IRS was 

### in enor when

## it issued 

### Plaintiff a 

### refund check

### for 2010, because 

## it was based

### on allegedly 

### falsified wage and withholding information. For these reasons, 

### Plaintiff s May 9,2014 

### Motion For Subpoena Duces Tecum is denied. 

## B, Plaintiff s

### July 18,2014 

### Motion For Enlargement. Pursuant 

### to Rule 

### 6(b), and 

### for good cause shown, 

### Plaintiffs July 18,2014 Motion For Enlargement 

## is granted. Plaintiffs Response 

### to the Govemment's 

### Motion 

### For Summary Judgment is due on 

### or before 

### October 3, 2014. 

## ilI. CONCLUSION. For these reasons, 

### Plaintiff s May 

### 9,2014 Motion For Subpoena DucesTecum is denied. 

### Plaintiffs July 18,2014 

### Motion For Enlargement 

### is

### ganted. In preparing 

### a Response 

### to the 

### Govemment's JuIy

### 3, 2014 

### Motion 

### For Summary Judgment, 

### Plaintiff may 

### wish

### to consider 

### RCFC 56(d), 

### providingthat 

## if a party opposing summary

### judgment "shows 

### by affidavit or 

### the court may defer 

### ruling

### to allowthe party appropriate order." 

### IT IS SO

### ORDERED. 

### tlme to 

## , or issue 

### "any other

SUSAN Judge