Summary
declining to consider or take judicial notice of two taxpayer-specific documents, as opposed to a third generic IRS guidance document
Summary of this case from Carr v. United StatesOpinion
No. 2:11-cv-02110 JAM KJN PS
07-24-2012
DONALD R. HUENE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; ANTHONY SHELLEY; and DOES I through X, Defendants.
ORDER
The court has resolved several pleadings-based motions filed by the defendants, and, on July 23, 2012, plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of that date. (Order, July 23, 2012, at 4, Dkt. No. 40.) Because of the number of pleadings-based motions filed in this case, the court enters this order to provide plaintiff with clarity about the nature of the leave provided by the court.
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This case is related to, but not consolidated with, the matter of Huene v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, et al., No. 2:11-cv-02109 JAM KJN PS (E.D. Cal.).
In preparing his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff shall not name "Does I through X" as defendants. (Order, June 15, 2012, at 2, Dkt. No. 39.) Additionally, in regards to defendant Anthony Shelley, plaintiff has only been granted leave to allege claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or both. (Order, June 15, 2012, at 2, Dkt. No. 38.) Finally, in regards to defendant Internal Revenue Service, plaintiff may only allege a claim or claims premised on violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1), and Internal Revenue Code § 6103(a), 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). (Order, July 23, 2012, at 4.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE