Veal v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 19

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Beeler on 2/14/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
PAUL EUGENE VEAL,

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

No. C 11-04148 LB

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

17

On November 14, 2011, the court granted Defendant United States of America’s1 motion to

18

dismiss pro se Plaintiff Paul Eugene Veal’s complaint, which sought to enjoin the Internal Revenue

19

Service from attempting to collect taxes from Plaintiff for the years 2006-08. Order Granting

20

Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18 at 3-4. The court granted Plaintiff permission to file an amended

21

complaint within fourteen days if he could allege specific facts that would cure the deficiencies

22

described in the order. Id. No amended complaint has been filed. The court interprets Plaintiff’s

23

inaction as expressing an intent not to proceed with the case. But, in an abundance of caution, the

24

court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

25
26
27
28

1

The government argues that Plaintiff improperly named the Internal Revenue Service as a
defendant and that the United States of America should be substituted. Motion, ECF No. 11 at 1 n.1.
The case law supports the government’s contention that the proper party in this litigation is the
United States. See Blackmare v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514-15 (1952).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
C 11-04148 LB

1

prosecute or comply with the court’s order. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,

2

356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff does not have to respond or show up to the currently

3

scheduled case management conference if he does not intend to further pursue the claims raised in

4

this suit. And, if Plaintiff does not respond by February 22, 2012, the case will be dismissed.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 14, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
C 11-04148 LB

2