Goodwin v. Amazon Services, LLC, et al.
Filing
2
SCREENING ORDER Granting Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/7/2018. (30-Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Complaint Form)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
LORAINE GOODWIN,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:17-cv-01157-AWI-BAM
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING LEAVE
TO AMEND
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
15
16
Plaintiff Loraine Goodwin (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil action. Plaintiff has
17
paid the filing fee.
18
enrichment and defamation against Amazon Services, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc. and various doe
19
defendants related to income reported to the Internal Revenue Service.
In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence, fraud, unjust
20
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on August 28, 2017, is currently before the Court for
21
screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her
22
complaint.
23
Screening Requirement
24
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is
26
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks
27
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1
28 U.S.C. §
1
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
2
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
3
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
4
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
5
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
6
(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge
7
unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
8
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
9
Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
10
doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012),
11
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims
12
must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to
13
reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S.
14
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572
15
F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
16
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
17
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
18
I.
19
Plaintiff alleges that she previously sold goods on Amazon.com in 2012 under the
20
pseudonym “santafairy,” but the account was closed in 2012. On or around February 15, 2015,
21
Plaintiff was informed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) that she owed over $24,000 in
22
past taxes and fees/fines for unreported income in 2013. Plaintiff learned that the income was
23
reported to the IRS by Amazon Services, LLC, in the amount of $82,570.
Allegations in Complaint
24
A United States Attorney later sent Plaintiff a list of transactions between Amazon and an
25
unknown person using Plaintiff’s name and social security number, but an unknown address in
26
another state. Plaintiff reportedly wrote to the attorney for Amazon Services, LLC, but was told
27
that “they would not do anything to help Plaintiff investigate the matter since they were not
28
involved as a party in the Tax Court lawsuit.” Complaint, Doc. 1 at p. 4. Plaintiff contends that
2
1
based on Amazon’s 1099, the IRS demands money. Around March 2016, Plaintiff also was
2
informed by the IRS that a 2015 1099 was filed using Plaintiff’s ID for unreported income in
3
2015.
4
5
As relief, Plaintiff seeks rescission of all 1099s, 20 years of anti-fraud services, punitive
damages, and settlement/closure of the related IRS case.
6
II.
7
Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff currently has an action
8
pending regarding her federal income tax liability in the United States Tax Court. Insofar as the
9
present action implicates her federal income tax liability, this court lacks jurisdiction over her
10
claims. Federal income tax liability falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States
11
Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C. § 7442; see also Guthrie v. Everson, No. 2:08-cv-1972 LKK JFM PS,
12
2008 WL 5323030, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2008), report and recommendation adopted, No.
13
2:08-cv-1972 LKK JFM PS, 2009 WL 667202 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009).
Discussion
14
Insofar as Plaintiff is seeking to have the 1099s issued by defendants voided, this court
15
also lacks jurisdiction. The Declaratory Judgment Act allows courts to “declare the rights and
16
other legal relations” of parties within its jurisdiction, but not “with respect to [f]ederal taxes.”
17
28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Further, any determination by the court that Plaintiff did not receive any
18
income from the sale of goods on amazon.com in 2013 and 2015 would be a determination of
19
Plaintiff’s underlying tax liability. As stated, however, the court lacks authority to determine a
20
party’s tax liability. See Sterling Consulting Corp. v. United States, 245 F.3d 1161, 1166 (10th
21
Cir. 2001) (“[T]here are no relevant exceptions under the Declaratory Judgment Act that permit
22
the district court to determine [a party’s] tax liabilities.”).
23
To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim against defendants for a
24
fraudulent information return, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim. Under 26 U.S.C. §
25
7434(a), a person may not “willfully file[ ]” with the IRS “a fraudulent information return with
26
respect to payments purported to be made to any other person[.]” For the purposes of § 7434(a),
27
an “information return” refers to an enumerated list of statements filed with the IRS pursuant to
28
the United States Tax Code. Id. § 7434(f). The statute authorizes the person on whose behalf the
3
1
fraudulent information return was filed to bring a civil action for damages against the person
2
filing the return. Id. § 7434(a); Katzman v. Essex Waterfront Owners LLC, 660 F.3d 565, 569 (2d
3
Cir. 2011) (discussing legislative intent of § 7434 to address the fact that some taxpayers may
4
suffer significant personal loss and inconvenience as the result of the IRS receiving fraudulent
5
information returns, “which have been filed by persons intent on either defrauding the IRS or
6
harassing taxpayers”). As a claim pursuant to § 7434 alleges fraud by definition, Federal Rule of
7
Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard applies. See Kearns v. Ford Motor
8
Company, 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). Rule 9 requires that a party alleging fraud or
9
mistake must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Fed. R.
10
Civ. P. 9(b).
11
Assuming, without deciding, that the form referenced by Plaintiff is an information return
12
subject to § 7434, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to demonstrate that any of the defendants
13
willfully filed the allegedly false information returns. “Willfuness in the context of § 7434
14
means “intentional wrongdoing.” See Gidding v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-01176-HSG,
15
2016 WL 4088865, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016). “[A]lthough Rule 9(b) permits knowledge
16
and intent to be pled in general terms, a plaintiff still must allege sufficient underlying facts from
17
which a court may reasonably infer that a party acted with the requisite state of mind.” San
18
Francisco Tech., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 5:10-cv-03248-JF/NJV, 2011 WL 941096, at
19
*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted). There is nothing in
20
Plaintiff’s allegations from which the court may reasonably infer that defendants acted with the
21
requisite state of mind, i.e., that defendants willfully filed false returns or that they intended to
22
either defraud the IRS or otherwise harass Plaintiff. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure this
23
deficiency if she can do so in good faith.
24
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
25
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The
26
Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies to the extent she is
27
able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
28
///
4
1
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what
2
each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,
3
556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations
4
must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.
5
at 555 (citations omitted).
6
7
Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated
claims in her first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
8
Finally, Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supersedes the original
9
complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
10
amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded
11
pleading.” Local Rule 220.
12
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1.
The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;
14
2.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
15
16
first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order; and
3.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the
17
Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order
18
and for failure to state a claim.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 7, 2018
22
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?