Ward v. Stanislaus
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-06167
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Ward v. Stanislaus, Judge Corley granted Yellen’s motion to dismiss because sovereign immunity barred Ward’s constitutional claims and amendment would be futile.
Marc R. Ward’s claims against Janet Yellen in her official capacity were dismissed without leave to amend; the order addressed Yellen’s motion and did not decide Ward’s constitutional theories on their merits.
What happened
In Ward v. Stanislaus, Marc Ward, representing himself, sued Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in her official capacity. Ward challenged the printing of U.S. currency and the collection of income taxes in dollars after his wages were garnished for unpaid taxes.
Yellen asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court ruled that the United States had not agreed to be sued on Ward’s constitutional claims. It also rejected Ward’s proposed Fair Credit Reporting Act claim because his allegations concerned currency and taxes, not false information reported to credit agencies.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted Yellen’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed Ward’s first amended complaint against Yellen without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Stanislaus · No. 3:23-cv-06167
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 8, 2024
Background
Marc R. Ward represented himself. He sued Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, in her official capacity. Ward alleged that Yellen’s role in printing Federal Reserve notes and authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to collect income taxes in U.S. dollars violated the Constitution.
Ward’s claims arose after the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office served Wells Fargo with a wage-garnishment writ in April 2023. The writ required Wells Fargo to withhold money from Ward’s paycheck and was based on a Contra Costa County superior court order concerning unpaid taxes. The withholding began in May 2023.
Yellen’s Motion and the Court’s Analysis
Yellen moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The court held that Ward’s constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents a person from suing the United States unless the government has clearly waived that protection. The court concluded that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for Ward’s constitutional claims, so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his suit against Yellen.
Ward also attempted to assert an “updated claim” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court explained that the Act can waive sovereign immunity for certain claims against the federal government, but concluded that Ward had not identified which provisions Yellen allegedly violated. The court found that the substance of Ward’s allegations concerned his objection to using U.S. dollars to pay taxes and debts, not false or misleading information that the Treasury reported about him to credit-reporting agencies. The court further stated that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not prohibit Yellen’s facilitation of the use of U.S. dollars as legal tender.
Disposition
The court granted Yellen’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also dismissed Ward’s first amended complaint as to Yellen without leave to amend because the proposed amended claim was not legally cognizable and amendment would be futile. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 31 and 33. The court did not reach the underlying question of whether printing currency or collecting taxes in U.S. dollars violated the Constitution.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.