Ames Ray v. Donald Priver

── Ames Ray v. Donald Priver ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 25-5222 September Term, 2025 FILED ON: MAY 27, 2026 AMES RAY, APPELLANT v. DONALD PRIVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:24-cv-01186) Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, and PAN and GARCIA, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs of the parties. See D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s order be AFFIRMED. * * * This case concerns a suit for damages against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff Ames Ray alleges that Internal Revenue Service agents violated his constitutional rights by falsifying evidence against him and maliciously prosecuting him for underpayment of taxes. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Bivens claims are unavailable in those circumstances. We affirm. I Ray alleges the following facts. The IRS conducted an audit of Ray’s 2014 tax return, which considered whether to penalize Ray for underpaying taxes as a result of negligence or disregard of rules and regulations. Two IRS agents concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to support such a penalty.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22. But two other IRS employees—attorney Donald Priver and agent Jon Lawson—determined a violation had nonetheless been identified, so in 2016 the IRS issued Ray a notice of tax deficiency and sought to impose an underpayment penalty. Ray brought an action in the Tax Court to challenge the deficiency notice and penalty. After several years of litigation—including an appeal to the Fifth Circuit—the Tax Court held that Ray did not owe any underpayment penalty. Although the case resolved in his favor, Ray requested IRS files regarding his audit under the Freedom of Information Act. Upon receiving those documents in 2022, Ray came to believe that Priver and Lawson had “maliciously prosecuted” him in the Tax Court and “falsified” or “fraudulently concealed” evidence. Id. ¶¶ 42– 43. Ray then filed this suit, claiming that Priver and Lawson violated his Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution and his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. He sought damages, as well as a declaration that the defendants had infringed his constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court granted their motion. The district court held that the implied cause of action for damages against federal officers recognized in Bivens does not extend to Ray’s circumstances. Ray v. Priver, 2025 WL 1113406, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2025). II “We review de novo the merits of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and assume the truth of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint.” Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHS, 980 F.3d 109, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Our analysis begins and ends with the availability of a Bivens remedy. In Bivens, the Supreme Court permitted a damages claim “for injuries consequen