Ahlstrand v. Lethert
| Decision Date | 19 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-70 Civ. 162.,4-70 Civ. 162. |
| Parties | Eric R. AHLSTRAND, Plaintiff, v. George O. LETHERT, District Director of Internal Revenue Service; Roy G. Vold, Appellate Conferee; John L. Lundberg, Assistant Chief; G. F. Studeman, Conferee; G. D. Robertson, Revenue Officer; R. T. Gardner, Group Supervisor, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Eric R. Ahlstrand, pro se.
Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., and Stephen G. Palmer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
The plaintiff brought this action against the six defendants, all agents of the United States Government working for the Internal Revenue Service.
The complaint alleged actions on the part of the defendants sounding in tort. The actions arose out of a controversy between plaintiff and the Internal Revenue Service over the disposition of some $160,000 received by the plaintiff as a result of a condemnation by the State of Minnesota, under its power of eminent domain, of a piece of property owned by plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the Internal Revenue Service were unable after a series of meetings to reach any agreement as to the plaintiff's tax liability. Apparently a tax lien eventually attached to plaintiff's property and attempts were made to collect the tax. It is out of these events, as nearly as can be ascertained by the complaint, that the plaintiff's alleged injuries arose.
Defendants move under Rule 12b(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As previously noted, defendants are all employees of the Internal Revenue Service. It has long been held that governmental officials have an absolute privilege, immunizing them from civil damage suits arising out of acts committed within the scope of their official functions. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (1896); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959).
The privilege is not a prerogative commensurate only with high office. It is, rather, a policy that governmental officials should be left free to pursue their official tasks without apprehension that they will be subject to civil damage suits for actions taken within the scope of their official authority. To subject such actions to question in civil suits would compel the officers to expend substantial time and effort defending lawsuits and might interfere with efficient enforcement of governmental regulation. See Barr v. Matteo, supra.
With the increasing complexity of governmental structure the delegation of authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. State of California
...411 F.2d 436, 448). However, official acts are privileged if they were done within the scope of their official duties (Ahlstrand v. Lethert, D.C., 319 F.Supp. 283, 284). As members of the Adult Authority, they are performing quasi-judicial functions when they make determinations regarding p......
-
McNeil v. Barton, 4:12CV00152 JLH
...them from civil damage suits arising out of acts committed within the scope of their official functions." Ahlstrand v. Lethert, 319 F. Supp. 283, 284 (D. Minn. 1970) (dismissing a pro se complaint brought against IRS employees). Because the Court takes judicial notice that Barton is an atto......