Henry Anthony Williams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue et al

Filing 26

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 21 . Defendants' motion is granted. The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction, so the Court therefore orders that the instant action be DISMISSED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-7321 CAS (PLAx)

Title

HENRY ANTHONY WILLIAMS V. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 16, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION (Docket #21, filed April 19, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of May 20, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 24, 2012 against the United States, the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and the California Franchise Tax
Board. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts tort claims against the United States and a claim
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). On April 19, 2013,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No
opposition has been filed. For the reasons explained below, defendants’ motion is
granted.
A “complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer subject matter
jurisdiction. . . .” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.3d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing
Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974)); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 n. 6 (1989); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681–82 (1946); Franklin v. Oregon
Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342–43 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is proper when the federal claim is “so insubstantial, implausible,
foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as
not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 89 (1998) (citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction may occur sua sponte. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir.
1983).
CV-12-7321 CAS (PLAx) (05/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-7321 CAS (PLAx)

May 16, 2013

Title

HENRY ANTHONY WILLIAMS V. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE

Plaintiffs’ complaint contains a jumble of allegations regarding conduct of the IRS
beginning in 2004, but no cognizable claim of wrongdoing. Plaintiff references 26
U.S.C. §§ 7431, 7433 in his complaint, which permit civil actions against the United
States for damages arising out of unauthorized disclosure of information and collection
activities. Plaintiffs does not allege any unlawful collection activities, however, but only
mentions assessments, which do not come within the scope of § 7433. See, e.g.,
Wesselman v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 2d 98, 101 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Section 7433 does
not give the Court jurisdiction over claims that the IRS has incorrectly determined the
amount of taxes owed or any other claims that do not directly arise from the IRS's
collection activities.”). Similarly, the only alleged unlawful disclosure alleged in the
complaint is disclosure of information to the California Franchise Tax Board, but “it is
clear that disclosure to state officials is permitted for purposes of state tax administration
and to collect taxes owed to the state governments under their income tax laws.” Gouch
v. California Franchise Tax Bd., 2009 WL 2957284, at *2 (N.D. Ga. 2009). Finally,
plaintiff’s claim under FOIA is so insubstantial that it does not involve a federal
controversy because it alleges nothing more than that plaintiff requested information
from the IRS and the IRS, in fact, responded; no allegations explain the nature of
plaintiff’s grievance related to FOIA.
The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction, so the Court therefore orders that the instant action be
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-12-7321 CAS (PLAx) (05/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2