The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn WINMILLChief U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
The Court has before it Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 5), and Noll's Motion to Strike (Dkt 9), which is essentially a second response to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to strike.
In the past, Noll and his wife have filed several complaints against the IRS and it's employees, with similar allegations to those made in this case. The previous complaints by the Nolls challenged the authority of the IRS and it's employees to assess and collect taxes. Noll v. I.R.S., 1996 WL 84671, at *1 (D. Idaho 1996); Noll v. United States, 1998 WL 823413, at *1 (9th Cir. 1998); Noll v. U.S. Gov't, 1999 WL 1816896, at *2 (D. Idaho 1999). On one occasion, the Nolls tried to invoked the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents from the IRS. Noll v. I.R.S., U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 1994 WL 745184, at *1 (D. Idaho 1994). The Nolls have also brought claims against individual IRS employees for fraud, embezzlement, and constitutional violations, based on the employees' attempts to collect unpaid taxes from them. Noll v. Peterson, 2001 WL 721733 (D. Idaho 2001) report and recommendation adopted at 2001 WL 846493 (D. Idaho 2001).
Each of the previous complaints were dismissed. Several of them were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Noll v. I.R.S, 1996 WL 84671, at *3 (D. Idaho 1996); Noll v. United States, 1998 WL 823413, at *1 (9th Cir. 1998); Noll v. U.S. Gov't, 1999 WL 1816896, at *2 (D. Idaho 1999). The Nolls' constitutional claims against IRS employees were dismissed because the courts have not recognized constitutional claims arising from the collection of taxes. Noll v. Peterson, 2001 WL 721733, at *3-4 (D. Idaho 2001) report and recommendation adopted 2001 WL 846493 (D. Idaho 2001). Such constitutional claims are unavailable because Congress has already provided sufficient remedies to protect taxpayers against improperly collected taxes. Id. Lastly, the Nolls' complaint invoking the Freedom of Information Act was dismissed because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit. Noll v. I.R.S., U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 1994 WL 745184, at *2 (D. Idaho 1994).
Noll's current Complaint and motion to strike are somewhat difficult to understand. Moreover, the current claims appear quite similar the allegations in the Nolls' previous complaints. Based upon a thorough review of the Complaint, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for the reasons explained below.
In his Complaint, the following defendants are listed: John Peterson; Betty Young; Keith Farrar; Ms. Case, employee #0469545905; Ms. Simmons, employee #04695248333; Mr. Parizek, 29-61699; and one, or more, unknown IRS Computer Data Entry Persons ("Defendants"). (Dkt. 1). The Complaint does not specifically list the IRS as a defendant. (Dkt. 1). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that when a suit is brought against IRS employees in their official capacity, it is virtually a suit against the United States. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). Therefore, the Complaint will be construed as asserting claims against the IRS and against the individual defendants in their official capacity and individual capacity.
Noll's first claim appears to challenge the authority of the IRS and the individual defendants to assess and collect taxes from him and his wife. Noll asserts that on November 10, 1988, Defendant Unknown IRS Computer Data Entry Persons(s) wrongfully entered a debt of $221,233.56 against him and his wife. (Dkt. 1 at 2). Noll claims it was wrongful because he and his wife were not subject to a federal tax. (Dkt. 1 at 2). Specifically, Noll believes that he is a "lawful non-taxpayer in relationship to Federal Tax Regulation." (Dkt. 1 at 1). Thus, as stated above, it appears that Noll is challenging the IRS's authority and the individual defendant's authority to assess and collect taxes from him and his wife.
Noll's second claim appears to assert that the individual defendants violated his constitutional rights. Noll asserts that in 1994 Defendants wrongfully generated a lien against his property and assets. (Dkt. 1 at 3). He also asserts Defendants wrongfully seized money from him and his wife's bank account after placing a levy on it. (Dkt. 1 at 3). Moreover, Noll claims that the Defendants have, and still are, making wrongful demands for payment in regard to an outstanding tax debt. (Dkt. 1 at 3). The Court understands Noll to be asserting that the Defendants use of lien, levy, or the seizing of his property and assets, violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. (Dkt. 1 at 3).
The government asks the Court to dismiss Noll's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 The Supreme Court has stated that Federal Courts are of limited jurisdiction and possess only the power given by ...