Powell v. Internal Revenue Service
263 F. Supp. 3d 5
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff William E. Powell, pro se, sued the IRS and related defendants in Feb. 2017 seeking tax records relating to his family’s printing businesses and ancestors.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the original Complaint; Powell then filed an Amended Complaint asserting a Privacy Act claim in June 2017.
- Powell sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (in substance a supplemental pleading) to add a FOIA claim based on FOIA/Privacy Act requests he submitted in June 2017.
- Defendants opposed, arguing the addition was neither a permissible Rule 15(a) amendment nor a Rule 15(d) supplement and that a new post-litigation cause of action was improper.
- The Court treated the filing as a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading, found supplementation appropriate because it would promote efficient resolution, cause no undue delay, and not prejudice defendants, and granted leave to file.
- The Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed and defendants were ordered to respond by August 30, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to add FOIA claim is permitted | Powell sought to add FOIA claim tied to June 2017 requests and to file as Second Amended Complaint | Defendants said adding an entirely new cause of action tied to post‑filing events is not allowed under Rules 15(a)/(d) | Court granted leave to supplement under Rule 15(d) and deemed the filing made |
| Whether the filing is an amendment (15(a)) or supplement (15(d)) | Powell styled it as a Second Amended Complaint | Defendants argued it did not qualify as either | Court treated it as a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading because it concerns events after the Amended Complaint |
| Timeliness and prejudice | Powell moved within a month of the Amended Complaint and soon after his June requests | Defendants argued they should not be required to litigate new claims now | Court found motion timely, would promote efficient resolution, and would not prejudice defendants |
| Whether Rule 15(d) allows a new cause of action based on post‑filing events | Powell maintained new FOIA claim arises from post‑complaint requests and may be litigated together | Defendants contended Rule 15(d) should not permit wholly new claims from after filing | Court held Rule 15(d) permits supplemental pleadings that may include new causes of action when convenient and fair to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hicks, 283 F.3d 380 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishes amendments under Rule 15(a) from supplemental pleadings under Rule 15(d))
- Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir.) (adding a new FOIA request is a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d))
- Griffin v. County School Bd., 377 U.S. 218 (U.S.) (Rule 15(d) and the aims of pleadings to promote orderly administration of justice)
- Gomez v. Wilson, 477 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 15(d) permits allegations of events occurring after the original pleading and related legal contentions)
- Fund for Animals v. Hall, 246 F.R.D. 53 (D.D.C.) (supplement allowed when new claim is closely related and prejudice is absent)