Ivey, Steven v. Dept Treas, No. 07-5378 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 07-5378 September Term 2007 07cv00480 Filed On: July 8, 2008 Steven Ivey, Appellant v. Department of Treasury, Appellee BEFORE: Ginsburg, Garland, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court s order filed October 22, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that appellant s Privacy Act claims are barred by res judicata. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). To the extent appellant attempted to raise additional causes of action, there is no private cause of action for perjury and subornation of perjury, see 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. W idnall, 57 F.3d 1162, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and the forging of evidence claim does not comply with the notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661, 670 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The forging of evidence claim is dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 670. It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant s final brief be struck. Except for the addition of citations to the deferred appendix and correction of typographical errors, no other changes may be made to the final brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 30(c)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

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.