United States District Court, N.D. Indiana
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19]. The Defendant's Motion argues that the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 11] should be dismissed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Pro Se Plaintiff, Harvey Hoover, filed what the Court construes as a Response [ECF No. 20] on June 19, 2014. He then filed another document titled as a "Motion for Non Dismissal" [ECF No. 23], which the Court will construe as a Supplement to his Response rather than as a Motion. Because it was filed as a Motion, however, the Defendant did file a Response [ECF No. 24]. Because the Court considers pro se filings liberally, the Court will consider all these filings together in this Opinion and Order, which resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss.
The history of the Plaintiff's interactions with the court system and federal agencies is lengthy and complex. The Court sets forth only the basic facts relevant to the pending Motion.
The Plaintiff, Harvey Hoover, was convicted on three counts of filing false income tax returns and one count of presenting a false statement on a college financial aid application. He was sentenced on July 24, 1998, to 46 months imprisonment and was ordered to turn over savings bonds as part of restitution. On September 18, 1998, the Court found the Plaintiff in contempt of court for actions related to the transfer of the savings bonds to his sons and sentenced him to an additional six months in prison. Hoover appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, but did determine that the Court lacked the authority to order him to turn over the savings bonds to pay restitution and ordered his sentence modified accordingly. United States v. Hoover , 175 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 1999). Hoover later appealed the district court's finding of contempt, but the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's contempt order. United States v. Hoover , 240 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2001).
In 2003, the IRS determined that the Plaintiff was entitled to an informant reward in the amount of $65, 146.07. (Pl.'s Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 11 at 25.) In a letter dated October 27, 2003, the IRS informed the Plaintiff that it had applied the entire award to his outstanding tax liabilities. ( Id. ) In December 2011, the Plaintiff filed a Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) administrative claim with the IRS for damages and loss of the informant award. ( Id. at 12-13.) The Plaintiff made no claims regarding his conviction, prison sentence, or IRS collection activities in his December 2011 letter. ( Id. ) On September 21, 2012, the IRS denied the Plaintiff's administrative claim on the grounds that is was untimely and barred under the FTCA. ( Id. ) Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed his Pro Se Complaint, which was later amended on two occasions.
A. Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When reviewing a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all of the factual allegations as true. Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Under the liberal notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint need only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not contain detailed facts, but surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion "requires more than labels and conclusions.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556).
The Plaintiff's claims fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA "contains a threshold requirement that an administrative claim be presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency.'" LeGrande v. United States , 687 F.3d 800, 812 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). "Indeed, no lawsuit may be filed unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2675). See also Glade v. United States , 692 F.3d 718, 723 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating that failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars a Federal Tort Claims Act suit); Bowers v. United States , 498 F.Appx. 623, 625 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing failure to exhaust in the context of a taxpayer suit for wrongful tax collection under 26 U.S.C. § 7433).
The administrative claim must contain "a statement of the essential facts underlying a claim" sufficient to allow a "legally trained reader" to infer the legal cause of action. See Murrey v. United States , 73 F.3d 1448, 1452-53 (7th Cir. 1996). Additionally, the claim must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years of the accrual of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). A cause of action accrues when the claimant knows or has reason to know of the fact of the injury that constitutes the basis of an action, and when a person in like circumstances would have discovered that the injury was caused by a government actor.
Certain issues are exempt, however, from the above requirements. The FTCA does not apply to claims relating to the assessment or collection of any tax. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c); see also Voelker v. Nolen , 365 F.3d 580, 581 (7th Cir. 2004) (finding that claims regarding assessment or collection of any tax are not covered by FTCA). Furthermore, the FTCA precludes suits against the government on any claim arising out of false imprisonment. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
B. The Plaintiff's Allegations
The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint presents a great deal of information from which it is somewhat difficult to discern specific claims. Although filed improperly, the Plaintiff's "Motion For Non Dismissal" [ECF No. 23] more clearly articulates his specific claims and because the Plaintiff is pro se the Court will consider this filing. The Plaintiff's restatement of his claims are all addressed by the Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. The Court understands the Plaintiff's filings as making the following claims: (1) damages for the amount of his informant award; (2) false imprisonment for all the time he spent in prison; (3) ...