- 7 -
Petitioner’s original complaint, on September 12, 2003, was sua
sponte ordered transferred to the Austin Division of the Western
District of Texas (District Court), where it was filed on
September 23, 2003. Lizcano v. United States, No. A-03-CA-661-SS
(D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2004).
On December 4, 2003, respondent filed a motion for
continuance of the then-scheduled Tax Court trial because “The
common issue before this Court and the District Court will
necessitate that the same evidence be introduced in each case.”
The Tax Court ordered petitioner to file a response. On
December 24, 2003, petitioner filed a response indicating no
objection to respondent’s motion. On December 30, 2003, the Tax
Court granted respondent’s motion for continuance.
On December 23, 2003, the District Court defendants filed
motions to dismiss, and on March 8, 2004, that court dismissed
all causes of action against the individual defendants and
granted petitioner leave to file an amended complaint with
respect to his Bivens, and section 7431 or Privacy Act, claims.4
4The District Court concluded that the suit against the
individually named defendants “in their official capacities” was
precluded by sovereign immunity, and that there was “no private
cause of action against an employee under the Family Medical
Leave Act” or “Whistleblower Act as applicable to federal
employees”. No claims were alleged by petitioner under the
Federal Tort Claims Act and the District Court found that “his
attempted Bivens pleadings * * * [were] also defective” because
they did not contain a “specific allegation of any constitutional
right violation”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008