Dodenhoff v. Department of the Treasury, et al.
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/18/17, ORDERING that plaintiff's 9 motion for preliminary inunction is DENIED, and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Matter referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DENNIS A. DODENHOFF,
No. 2:17-cv-00831 TLN CKD (PS)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, et
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. His first two
complaints were dismissed with leave to amend. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended
complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 8.) The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts
to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The SAC names three defendants: the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue
Service, and Congressman John Garamendi. Plaintiff alleges that these “defendants have
proceeded, without due process of law, to take a portion of the plaintiff’s Social Security benefit
as payment on an unsubstantiated debt.” (SAC at 5.) He alleges that these actions “have taken
place for the last 20+ years” and that the stigma from the government’s lien has prevented him
from getting a job. (Id.) He seeks the “immediate return of $65,965.40,” the amount he alleges
has been unlawfully diverted from his Social Security payments over the years. (Id.) Plaintiff
does not describe “the unsubstantiated debt” or provide any paperwork documenting the alleged
deductions from his benefit payments.
Plaintiff has now filed three complaints in this action. He was previously advised of the
standards for pleading a federal claim. The SAC does not cure the pleading deficiencies evident
in the original complaint or the first amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 3 & 7.) Most basically,
plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the conduct of each defendant resulted in a deprivation of
plaintiffs’ federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Like the prior
complaints, the SAC is too vague and conclusory to state a claim.
Despite repeated opportunities to cure the deficiencies in his complaints, plaintiff has
failed to do so. Moreover, it appears that further amendment would be futile. Thus the
undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for injunction, which will be denied as the SAC fails to
state an actionable claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary inunction
(ECF No. 9) is denied.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: July 18, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?