Henry v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2009cv05620 - Document 55 (E.D. La. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS granting 35 Motion to Dismiss Case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any additional motions in this action without first seeking leave of court to do so and certifying, in writing, that the proposed submission is not repetitive or duplicative and does not contain any inappropriate, irrelevant, malicious, and/or insulting comments. Failure to comply with this order may result in filings being stricken from the record and/or the imposition of significant financial or other sanctions as stated within document Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/8/2010. (cab)

Download PDF

Henry v. United States of America et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL HENRY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 09-5620 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SECTION "N" ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is the Government's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, to Impose Penalty Under 26 U.S.C. 6673(b) and to Enjoin Future Filings by Plaintiff (Rec. Doc. 35). The Court has carefully considered the motion, the opposition, the record in this matter and in Civil Action 02-968, and pertinent legal authorities. The Court finds that the claims asserted by Plaintiff, Michael Henry, in this action: (1) already have been addressed by the numerous rulings issued by this Court,1 the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits,2 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois3 and/or the United States Tax Court;4 (2) can be addressed adequately by one or 1 See Henry v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-968 (E.D. La.)(Engelhardt, J). 2 See Henry v. United States, No. 07-30581, 277 Fed. Appx. 429, 2008 WL 1976616 (5 Cir.); see also, e.g., Henry v. United States, Nos. 09-2398, 08-1314, 07-3337 (7th Cir.). th 3 See, e.g., Henry v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action Nos. 09-2230, 09-1994, 07-4814, 07-4813, 06-7087 (N.D. Ill.); Henry v. Gavin, et al., No. 07-5649 (N.D. Ill.); Dockets.Justia.com more of Plaintiff's pending motions in Civil Action No. 02-968; and/or, for the reasons stated by the Government, (3) are without merit or otherwise not appropriately considered by this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED insofar as the Government seeks dismissal of the action. With respect to a penalty and future filings by Plaintiff, both this Court and the other courts referenced herein have noted Plaintiff's multitude of repetitive and duplicative submissions that have demanded an unwarranted expenditure of resources by the federal court system and the Government. Furthermore, many of these filings have contained inappropriate, irrelevant, malicious, and insulting comments regarding various counsel for the Government, IRS employees, and others. Given these circumstances, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any additional motions in this action without first seeking leave of court to do so and certifying, in writing, that the proposed submission is not repetitive or duplicative and does not contain any inappropriate, irrelevant, malicious, and/or insulting comments. Failure to comply with this order Henry v. Gordon, et al., No. 07-5618 (N.D. Ill.). Indeed, in late 2007, the Executive Committee of that court restricted Plaintiff's ability to file new cases pro se in that judicial district. See In re Michael F. Henry, Civil Action No. 07-7159 (N.D. Ill.)(Dec. 26, 2007). 4 Significantly, the Tax Court recently granted the Government's summary judgment motion and denied the relief sought by Plaintiff. See Henry v. Commissioner, No.17055-08-L (U.S. Tax Court)(April 26, 2010). The Government has filed a copy of that ruling in the record of this matter. See Rec. Doc. 54-1. In that decision, the Tax Court determined, inter alia, that it had jurisdiction regarding tax year 1999. It further concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability relative to what the undersigned and the parties to this matter, and Civil Action 02-968, have referred to as the "2004 Assessment." To the extent that Plaintiff believes the Tax Court's rulings to be erroneous, the Court emphasizes that appeals of Tax Court decisions are not made to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. See 26 U.S.C. §7482. 2 may result in filings being stricken from the record and/or the imposition of significant financial or other sanctions. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of June 2010. __________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.