Ordonez v. U.S. Department of the Treasury et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/24/13. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARCO T. ORDONEZ,
Civil
No.
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; and INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
11cv2340-CAB (NLS)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
[Doc. No. 13]
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on October 6,
18
2011, then filed an Amended Complaint on February 6, 2012. [Doc. No. 7.] On April 18,
19
2012, defendant United States of America filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
20
Complaint. [Doc. No. 13.] On June 18, 2012, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion.
21
[Doc. No. 17.] On June 25, 2012, defendant filed a reply to the opposition. [Doc. No.
22
18.] The Court deems the matter suitable for submission without oral argument pursuant
23
to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
24
hereby GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss.
25
26
After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court
I. Allegations of Amended Complaint
The Amended Complaint is entitled “Complaint for: Erroneously denied
27
tax refund.” [Doc. No. 7 at 1.] In it, plaintiff alleges that he is a prisoner at Calipatria
28
State Prison and works in the prison as a Program Services Clerk for $.032 per hour.
1
11cv2340
1
[Doc. No. 7 at 2, 4.] Plaintiff alleges he received compensation in the amount of
2
$8,946.00 for tax year 2006, and reported this on a Form 1040EZ. [Doc. No. 7 at 1.]
3
Plaintiff also alleges that he provided a Form 4852 (a substitute for a form W-2) with the
4
Form 1040EX. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the State of California does not issue W-2s to
5
prison inmates. [Doc. No. 7 at 2.]
6
Plaintiff alleges that after he submitted his Form 1040Z, he received a
7
letter from the IRS requesting proof of wages. Id. Plaintiff claims that he responsed by
8
producing a copy of certain periodic pay statements. Id. On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff
9
alleges he received a letter from the IRS informing him that his claim for refund was
10
disallowed. Plaintiff alleges he appealed that decision by filing a Form 1040X on March
11
29, 2010. Plaintiff alleges the IRS denied his claim in August of 2010 and the IRS
12
denied his second appeal on November 2, 2010. Id.
13
Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that: (1) affirms his and other
14
similarly situated prisoners status as common law employees under I.R.C. § 3121(d)(2);
15
(2) declares that a person in his position is in compliance with the law and not
16
committing fraud by filing a tax return; (3) that services and property received by a
17
prisoner are part of gross income under I.R.C. § 61; and (4) to recognize the legitimacy
18
of his tax refunds and all other legitimate claims submitted by the incarcerated. [Doc.
19
No. 7 at 5-6.] Additionally, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $1,000,000.00 for
20
alleged emotional and psychological damage caused by the denial of his tax claims as
21
well as $1,000,000.00 in punitive damges for violations of his rights under the eighth
22
and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. [Doc. No. 7 at 6-7.]
II. Discussion
23
24
25
1. Legal Standard.
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction
26
and trial courts will presume a lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise.
27
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Ass'n of
28
American Medical Colleges v. U.S., 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir.2000); Sun Microsystems
2
11cv2340
1
Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 2007 WL 1056783, *2 (N.D.Cal.2007). A
2
jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be made either on the face of the
3
pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
4
328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2003). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the
5
allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal
6
jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the
7
allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” See Safe
8
Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that an attack
9
was factual where a defendant challenged plaintiff's contention that grass residue
10
constitutes solid waste under RCRA). Here, defendant asserts a facial attack [Doc. No.
11
13-1 at 3]. Therefore, the Court must accept the complaint’s allegations as true. Safe Air
12
for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039.
13
2. Claim for tax refund.
14
The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint appears to be a claim for a tax
15
refund. The United States, as a sovereign entity, is immune from suit except when it
16
consents to be sued. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990); United States v.
17
Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). It is the plaintiff's burden to establish the jurisdiction
18
of the court, and thus, plaintiff must show a waiver of sovereign immunity. See McNutt
19
v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 188 (1936).
20
Plaintiff fails to show that the United States has waived immunity from
21
suit here. Section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that “[n]o suit or
22
proceeding can be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax
23
alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... until a claim for
24
refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary.” 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a).
25
Furthermore, in order for a district court to have jurisdiction over a suit for the refund of
26
taxes, the taxpayer must first have paid the assessment, or a divisible portion thereof, for
27
which relief is sought. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a), 6532(a); Thomas v. United States, 755
28
F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir.1985); Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960).
3
11cv2340
1
Here, plaintiff fails to allege what amout of tax Plaintiff owed for the
2
2006 tax year or the amount of tax he was assessed for that year. [Doc. No. 7 at 2-5.]
3
More importantly, plaintiff does not allege that he fully paid whatever amount of tax he
4
was assessed (if any). Full payment of the assessed amount of taxes is a legal
5
prerequisite to a suit for refund. See I.R.C. § 7422; Flora, 362 U.S. at 150-151. Without
6
an allegation of full payment, plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to establish that
7
subject matter jurisdiction exists for a suit for refund. See Del Elmer; Zachay v.
8
Metzger, 967 F.Supp. 398, 405 (S.D. Cal. 1997)(where plaintiff has failed to allege
9
jurisdictional prerequisites for a refund suit, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
10
In his opposition, plaintiff admits that he does not, and apparently cannot, allege full
11
payment of the assessed tax. [Doc. No. 17 at 5.] Therefore, the defendant’s motion to
12
dismiss this claim is GRANTED without leave to amend.
13
3. Declaratory Relief Claims.
Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief on behalf of himself and others
14
15
similarly situated1 with regard to federal taxes. However, declaratory relief with respect
16
to federal taxes is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Section 2201(a) states in relevant part:
In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction,
except with respect to Federal taxes ... any court of the
United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading,
may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration.....
17
18
19
20
28 U.S.C. § 2201 (emphasis added).
The language of the Declaratory Judgment Act withdraws jurisdiction
21
22
from federal courts over any suit seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to federal
23
taxes, whether or not the suit would have the effect of restraining the assessment or
24
collection of federal taxes. Alexander v. “Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 759 n.
25
26
27
28
1
To the extent plaintiff purports to represent others “similarly situated,” such claims are also
barred. Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is
personal to him. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir.1966). He has no authority to
appear as an attorney for others than himself. Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir.1962);
Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44, 45 (D.C.Cir.1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944, 74 S.Ct. 640, 98 L.Ed.
1092 (1954).
4
11cv2340
1
2
10 (1974); Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir.1982).
Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's
3
claim for a declaratory judgment with respect to his federal tax liabilities and the tax
4
collection activities taken against him. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss this
5
claim is GRANTED without leave to amend.
6
4. Claims for compensatory damages for emotional and psychological damage.
7
In addition to declaratory relief, plaintiff seeks damages for “the
8
emotional and psychological damage produced by the irreparable financial harm” caused
9
by the denial of his tax claims. [Doc. No. 7 at 6.] However, such claims are also barred
10
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “The Federal Government cannot be sued without
11
its consent.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289 (2009). Where the
12
United States has not consented to suit, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject
13
matter of the action and dismissal is required. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458
14
(9th Cir.1985). A court strictly construes waivers of sovereign immunity, which must be
15
unequivocally expressed in the statutory text; to show that the government is liable for
16
awards of monetary damages, the waiver of sovereign immunity must extend
17
unambiguously to such monetary claims. Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc.
18
v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829, 840 (9th Cir.2012).
19
The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) is the exclusive remedy for a
20
claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or
21
personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
22
employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.
23
28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). Even though the FTCA provides certain remedies to sue the
24
federal government and its employees, it has limitations and exceptions. First, a
25
prerequisite to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA requires the claimant
26
to present an administrative claim to the appropriate Federal agency first and to have his
27
claim finally denied by the agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2675. If this is not done, a plaintiff's
28
claim is premature. Meridian Int'l Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740, 743 (9th
5
11cv2340
1
Cir.1991). In this case, there is no record before the Court that indicates plaintiff filed
2
such a claim, and the claim had been denied. Second, the FTCA does not extend to any
3
“claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax ....” 28 U.S.C. §
4
2680(c); Morris v. United States, 521 F.2d 872, 874 (9th Cir.1975). Here, plaintiff’s
5
claims arise out of an alleged failure to provide a tax refund, and thus, the FTCA does
6
not apply. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to cite any other statutory authority that waives
7
the United States' sovereign immunity in this case. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to
8
dismiss the claims for compensatory damages for emotional and psychological damages
9
is GRANTED without leave to amend.
10
5. Punitive damages.
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages for the federal defendant’s
11
12
“malicious and deliberate indifference and callous disregard of federal tax regulations
13
and applicable law.” [Doc. No. 7 at 6.] In doing so, plaintiff does not allege any waiver
14
of sovereign immunity. The United States cannot be sued for punitive damages unless
15
Congress explicitly authorizes such liability. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ault, 256
16
U.S. 554 (1921); Kasprik v. United States, 87 F.3d 462, 465 (11th Cir. 1996). Sovereign
17
immunity has not been waived with respect to punitive damages. Therefore, the motion
18
to dismiss the claim for punitive damages is GRANTED without leave to amend.
19
6. Constitutional claims.
Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to damages based upon vague
20
21
allegations that his rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution
22
have been violated. [Doc. No. 7 at 7.] To the extent plaintiff is purporting to state a
23
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff has failed to establish a waiver of sovereign
24
immunity. The United States is a sovereign, and may not be sued for money damages
25
without its consent. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976).2 The United
26
27
28
2
In his opposition, plaintiff requests leave to substitute the IRS and the Treasury Department for
the United States. [Doc. No. 17 at 1.] However, a suit for damages against a federal agency or federal
employees in their official capacity is essentially a suit against the United States and is also barred by
sovereign immunity absent statutory consent. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1460 & n. 6 (9th
6
11cv2340
1
States has not waived its sovereign immunity for actions seeking damages for
2
constitutional violations. See Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401–02 (9th Cir.1983)
3
(rejecting claimant's argument that sovereign immunity did not apply to his due process
4
claim for damages when the federal defendants were being sued in their official capacity
5
only); Arnsberg v. United States, 757 F.2d 971, 980 (9th Cir.1984) (holding plaintiff's
6
damages claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against the United States
7
was barred by sovereign immunity). “Where a suit has not been consented to by the
8
United States, dismissal of the action is required.” Gilbert, 756 F.2d at 1458. Therefore,
9
defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for damages for alleged constitutional
10
violations is GRANTED without leave to amend.
III. Conclusion
11
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED
12
13
WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE the action.
14
15
DATED: June 24, 2013
16
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cir.1985).
7
11cv2340
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?