Dodenhoff v. Department of the Treasury, et al.

Filing 10

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS A. DODENHOFF, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:17-cv-00831 TLN CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER & DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. His first two 18 complaints were dismissed with leave to amend. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended 19 complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 8.) The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts 20 to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 21 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 23 The SAC names three defendants: the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue 24 Service, and Congressman John Garamendi. Plaintiff alleges that these “defendants have 25 proceeded, without due process of law, to take a portion of the plaintiff’s Social Security benefit 26 as payment on an unsubstantiated debt.” (SAC at 5.) He alleges that these actions “have taken 27 place for the last 20+ years” and that the stigma from the government’s lien has prevented him 28 from getting a job. (Id.) He seeks the “immediate return of $65,965.40,” the amount he alleges 1 1 has been unlawfully diverted from his Social Security payments over the years. (Id.) Plaintiff 2 does not describe “the unsubstantiated debt” or provide any paperwork documenting the alleged 3 deductions from his benefit payments. 4 Plaintiff has now filed three complaints in this action. He was previously advised of the 5 standards for pleading a federal claim. The SAC does not cure the pleading deficiencies evident 6 in the original complaint or the first amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 3 & 7.) Most basically, 7 plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the conduct of each defendant resulted in a deprivation of 8 plaintiffs’ federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Like the prior 9 complaints, the SAC is too vague and conclusory to state a claim. 10 Despite repeated opportunities to cure the deficiencies in his complaints, plaintiff has 11 failed to do so. Moreover, it appears that further amendment would be futile. Thus the 12 undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action. 13 14 15 16 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. 17 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 24 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: July 18, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2 dodenhoff0381.SAC_57 2

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?