Caldwell v. Kagan
865 F. Supp. 2d 35
D.D.C.2012Background
- Caldwell, Sr. sues numerous federal officials, Argosy University, and its president over alleged due process violations stemming from prior federal proceedings.
- Prior cases include Caldwell v. Comm’r (Tax Court, 2008), Caldwell v. U.S. Tax Court (D.D.C., 2009), and Caldwell v. Kagan (D.D.C., 2011) with appeals to the D.C. Cir. and certiorari to the Supreme Court denied.
- Judge Huvelle dismissed Caldwell v. Kagan for lack of standing and absolute immunity on judges; Caldwell v. Argosy Univ. was dismissed for failure to plead under Rule 8(a).
- Caldwell filed criminal complaints against Judge Huvelle and judicial-misconduct complaints with the Judicial Counsel; the agencies did not act.
- Current complaint restates earlier claims against Kagan, Holder, Duncan, and various federal actors, plus Argosy Univ. and its president, alleging due process violations.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on standing, immunity, res judicata, and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue Kagan, Holder, Duncan | Caldwell alleges injury tied to actions by Solicitor General/AG in denial of certiorari and related processes. | No causally connectable injury; actions are not fairly traceable to plaintiffs' harm; lack standing. | Dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Qualified immunity for Kagan, Holder, Duncan | Actions violated due process and constitutional rights. | No clearly established constitutional right implicated; actions protected by qualified immunity. | Dismissed under 12(b)(6) for qualified immunity. |
| Preclusion / res judicata on Shulman and Gregg claims | New suit reasserts prior tax-court-related claims against same defendants. | Final Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in earlier case constitutes final merits judgment; precludes revisiting. | Dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) due to claim preclusion. |
| Absolute immunity for judges and nonreviewable prosecutorial decisions | Judges acted improperly; complaints show misconduct. | Judicial immunity bars claims; prosecutorial discretion is unreviewable. | Dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for absolute immunity and unreviewable decisions. |
| Rule 8(a) sufficiency of Argosy Univ. claims; Bivens/state-law theory | Fifth Amendment/Bivens theory against Argosy and Erekson; sufficient pleading. | FCA reference not applicable; private defendants not liable under Fifth Amendment in federal case; Rule 8(a) not satisfied. | Dismissed with prejudice; failure to state claim; improper pleading; no Bivens remedy against private parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (standing defects bar jurisdiction; subject-matter jurisdiction issue)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (Supreme Court, 1974) (presume factual allegations true on dismissal; pleadings favored)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics & Coord. Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court, 1993) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; pleading requirements)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court, 1982) (official capacity absolute immunity for government officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court, 2009) (outlined standard for applying qualified immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978) (judicial immunity for acts within judicial function)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991) (judicial immunity not overcome by bad faith or malice)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 347 (Supreme Court, 1871) (foundational judicial immunity doctrine)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (Supreme Court, 1985) (agency prosecutorial discretion is unreviewable absent statute)