Legal Opinion
Johnson v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided July 26, 2016No. 16-149TPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Tucker Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1491; Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(1); Tax Refund; Wrongful Levy; IFP Application
OPINION AND ORDER
MARGARET M. SWEENEY, Judge
Before the court are plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Roger C. Johnson seeks a refund of “illegally levied” monies from his “exempt pension fund.” Compl. ¶ 2. According to plaintiff, as a federal “nontaxpayer,” he has no obligation to comply with the Internal Revenue…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Whiteford v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020