Rodolfo Lizcano - Page 7




                                        - 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