Harper v. Rettig

Harper v. Rettig

Opinion

ORDER

James Harper brought this civil rights suit against Commissioner Charles Rettig, the IRS, and various unknown officers of the IRS (John Does 1 through 10) (collectively, "the government"). Harper alleges that the government violated the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) by obtaining records of his financial transactions from third parties. The government moves to dismiss (doc. no. 12) Harper's suit for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Harper objects.

Standard of Review

When resolving a challenge to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or determining whether a claim upon which relief can be granted has been stated under Rule 12(b)(6), the court construes the allegations in the complaint liberally, treats [*2]  all well-pleaded facts as true, and resolves inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Jalbert v. United States SEC, 945 F.3d 587, 590-91 (1st Cir. 2019); Hamann v. Carpenter, 937 F.3d 86, 88 (1st Cir. 2019). The court, however, disregards conclusory allegations that simply parrot the applicable legal standard. Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013).

When addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, in addition to the complaint, the court may consider other evidence submitted by the parties without objection. Hajdusek v. United States, 895 F.3d 146, 148 (1st Cir. 2018). The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists when challenged. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).

Background

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.