West's authorization with their initial FOIA request amounts to failure to exhaust administrative remedies." Rather, the Tenth Circuit finds that "Plaintiffs have done all they could to challenge the IRS's adverse determination that their request seeks protected return information and to obtain a final administrative decision," which included administratively appealing the IRS's initial response. The Tenth Circuit notes that it is "not entirely convinced of the first premise of the IRS's argument and the district court's holding – that failure to file U.S. §6103 and plaintiff had not presented a waiver from the taxpayer as required by IRS regulations, the IRS had not received a perfected FOIA request and, accordingly, was unable to issue its final determination. The Tenth Circuit concludes that the district court improperly held that "Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies under FOIA deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction." The court below had concluded that because tax return information is protected by 26 U.S.C. Holding: Rejecting the district court's conclusion that it was jurisdictionally barred from deciding plaintiffs' FOIA claim on the merits but affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the IRS on the grounds that the IRS properly invoked Exemption 3 with respect to all requested records because they pertained to a third party's return information and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to conduct an in camera review.
well after the government responded to FOIA request," which re-triggered the exhaustion requirement. Circuit finds that he "did not file his complaint until. Although plaintiff alleged that he constructively exhausted his administrative remedies because the IRS did not respond to his request within twenty days, the D.C. Circuit affirms the finding of the district court that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to one of his requests. June 6, 2012) (per curiam).Holding: Affirming order of the district court dismissing individual defendants from the case and substituting the IRS as the proper party and its finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and denying plaintiff's request to strike defendant's filings.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit "even though he had failed to pursue timely all administrative remedies" and here the court accordingly affirms the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.įlaherty v.
The defendant responded that it declined to adjudicate plaintiff's appeal because it was untimely. However, the plaintiff did not appeal until April 29, 2009. "Under the facts alleged in complaint, he 'neither actually nor constructively exhausted his administrative remedies.'" The Defendant notified plaintiff of his right to appeal on May 5, 2008. The court holds that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim. Holding: The court affirms the district's court dismissal of plaintiff's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.