Osterman v. Department of Treasury et al
Filing
19
ORDER Granting 11 Motion to Dismiss; the Court Denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18 ). Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of this Order to properly serve the United States with the Summons and Complain t and file the proof of service. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. If Plaintiff properly serves the United States with the Summons and Complaint, Plaintiff may seek leave from the Court to amend his Complaint. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/11/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHARLES B. OSTERMAN,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
Case No.: 15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, DIRECTOR
OF INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, AND LAYNE CARTER
REVENUE AGENT,
15
16
17
18
Defendants.
19
20
The United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint
21
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint
22
in part pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
23
and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
24
can be granted. For the reasons discussed below, the United States’ motion to
25
dismiss is GRANTED.
26
27
28
1
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
I. BACKGROUND
2
On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff Charles B. Osterman commenced this action. In
3
his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks tax refunds for tax years 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009,
4
2010, and 2011. Plaintiff alleges that he is owed refunds totaling $11,501.00 in
5
addition to interest and penalties. (Compl. at 13-15.) Plaintiff also seeks damages
6
in the amount of $250,000 for “aggravation” and “stress” contributing to health
7
problems. (Compl. at 15.) The Complaint also mentions that Plaintiff is seeking a
8
permanent injunction against Defendants, enjoining Defendants from performing
9
certain acts of harassment. (Compl. at 1.)
10
11
II. DISCUSSION
12
The United States moves to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(5) for
13
insufficient service of process. The United States also moves to dismiss the
14
following claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6): (1) Plaintiff’s refund claims for
15
tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; (2) Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief; and
16
(3) Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages against Layne Carver and the other
17
defendants. As discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not properly
18
served the United States, the proper defendant, as required by Rule 4(i). The
19
Court also finds that dismissal of the claims that are the subject of the United
20
States’ Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion is warranted.
21
22
A. Sufficiency of Service of Process
23
As an initial matter, the Court determines that the United States is the proper
24
defendant in this action. A suit against IRS employees in their official capacities is
25
essentially a suit against the United States. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455,
26
1458 (9th Cir. 1985). The Complaint does not allege any specific facts as to the
27
“Director of Internal Revenue Service.”
28
Complaint points to a letter that was sent by Layne Carver, an Operations Manager
With respect to “Layne Carter,” the
2
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
with the IRS. This letter [Doc. 1-2 at 150-53] was an official communication
2
cautioning Plaintiff against sending frivolous correspondence and informing
3
Plaintiff of the IRS’s authority to collect taxes that civil penalties for the filing of
4
frivolous income tax returns. Layne Carver was acting in his official capacity in
5
sending the letter, and any claims against Mr. Carver or the Director of Internal
6
Revenue Service are properly brought against the United States. See Lotus Mgmt.
7
LLC v. Shulman, 2013 WL 6157313, at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) (dismissing
8
IRS employees acting in official capacity and substituting in United States as
9
proper party defendant).
10
Similarly, the IRS and Department of the Treasury are not proper defendants.
11
“It is well established that federal agencies are not subject to suits Eo nomine
12
unless so authorized by Congress in explicit language.” City of Whittier v. United
13
States Dep’t of Justice, 598 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation and
14
citation omitted). See also Castleberry v. Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Div. of
15
Treasury Dep’t, 530 F.2d 672, 673 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1976) (explaining that Congress
16
has not authorized suits against the Department of the Treasury or any of its
17
division or branches).
18
Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action as against the Department of
19
Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, Director of Internal Revenue Service, and
20
“Layne Carter.” The Court substitutes in as the proper party defendant the United
21
States of America.
22
However, the United States must be properly served with the Summons and
23
Complaint. Plaintiff has attempted to serve Defendants, but it does not appear that
24
he has done so properly.
25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) governs the service of the United States and its agencies,
26
corporations, officers, or employees. Under Rule 4(i), the plaintiff must serve the
27
United States as follows:
28
3
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
2
3
4
United States. To serve the United States, a party must:
(A)(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United
States attorney for the district where the action is brought--or to an
assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United
States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or
5
(ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the
civil-process clerk at the United States attorney's office;
6
7
8
(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney
General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and
9
10
11
12
(C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of
the United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail
to the agency or officer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff claims that he served the Summons and Complaint on the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of California. However, Mary C. Wiggins,
the Civil Process Clerk for the Civil Division of the Office of the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of California, states that although the office had
been served with a Summons and an order denying Plaintiff’s request for entry of
default, the office had not been served with the Complaint in this matter. (Wiggins
Decl. ¶ 4.) In January 2016, Plaintiff filed a proof of service, which indicates service
of the Summons on “Mary Wiggins” on January 13, 2016. [Doc. 10.] But the proof
of service does not mention service of the Complaint and does not specify who
took receipt of the documents.1
The proofs of service on the Attorney General were signed by Plaintiff
himself, who attempted to serve the Attorney General by certified mail. [Doc. 10
26
27
28
1
Apparently, in April 2016, Plaintiff mailed, through regular mail, a copy of five summonses and a partial
copy of the Complaint to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. (Opp. at 4:1522.) This does not constitute proper service either.
4
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
at 2-4.] Service must be effected by a person who is at least 18 years old and not
2
a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (emphasis added). Furthermore, it appears that
3
Plaintiff sent his documents to the Attorney General for the District of Columbia
4
instead of the Attorney General for the United States.
5
Because service of process on Defendants was insufficient, the Court
6
quashes the service of process. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case,
7
Plaintiff must serve the United States, the proper party defendant, as required by
8
Rule 4(i). Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of this Order to properly serve the
9
United States with the Summons and Complaint and file the proof of service.
10
Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action.
11
12
B. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim
13
The United States contends that the following claims should be dismissed
14
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim: (1) Plaintiff’s
15
refund claims for tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; (2) Plaintiff’s claim for
16
injunctive relief; and (3) Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages. The Court agrees.
17
The United States is immune from suit except when it consents to be sued.
18
United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990). A waiver of sovereign immunity
19
cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756
20
F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). The taxpayer bears the burden of showing an
21
unequivocal waiver of immunity. Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th
22
Cir. 1987).
23
“A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully assessed or
24
collected may bring an action against the Government either in United States
25
district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims.”
26
1346(a)(1). However, before bringing such an action, a claim for refund or credit
27
must have been filed with the IRS in accordance with applicable statutes and
28
regulations. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The administrative claim must be filed within 3
28 U.S.C. §
5
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid,
2
whichever of such period expires later. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). If a taxpayer fails to
3
file an administrative claim within the prescribed time, the district court is divested
4
of jurisdiction over an action for a refund or credit. Omohundro v. United States,
5
300 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002).
6
Although Plaintiff alleges that he sent correspondence to the IRS requesting
7
refunds for the tax years in question, he does not allege that he filed an
8
administrative claim according to IRS procedures. Therefore, the Court dismisses
9
Plaintiff’s refund claims for tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. See Del Elmer
10
v. Metzger, 967 F. Supp. 398, 404 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (dismissing claim for refund
11
because, among other things, the plaintiff had not alleged that he had filed a proper
12
administrative claim for refund with the IRS). The Court does not reach the United
13
States’ arguments on the merits for dismissing these refund claims.
14
The United States does not seek to dismiss any refund claims for tax years
15
2002 and 2003 at this time.2 Therefore, the Court does not dismiss these claims.
16
Although Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary
17
injunction, the Complaint does not specify what actions Plaintiff seeks to enjoin.
18
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the IRS from assessing or collecting any
19
tax liabilities, such relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421. The
20
Anti-Injunction Act provides that, with limited statutory exceptions not applicable
21
here, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax
22
shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff seeks refunds in the amount of $180 and $1,392 for withholding
overpayment credits for tax years 2008 and 2010 respectively. However, it
appears that the IRS applied the overpayments to tax liabilities for years 2002 and
2003. (Morris Decl. ¶¶ 6.a., 6.c.) Plaintiff, who asserts that there were no tax
liabilities for 2002 and 2003, may seek a refund for tax years 2002 and 2003 for
these amounts if Plaintiff has filed a timely administrative claim.
6
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). The Act’s
2
purpose is to permit the government to assess and collect taxes it determines to
3
be owed without judicial intervention. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation
4
Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962).
5
In Enochs, the Supreme Court construed the Anti-Injunction Act as including
6
an equitable exception under which the plaintiff can file an action where the
7
taxpayer shows that “under no circumstances could the Government ultimately
8
prevail.” 370 U.S. at 7. Plaintiff has not made this showing. Therefore, his
9
preliminary injunction claim is dismissed.
10
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $250,000 for aggravation
11
and stress. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a civil action against the
12
United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. Section 7433(a) provides:
13
If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a
taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service
recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any
provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title,
such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United
States in a district court of the United States. Except as provided in
section 7432, such civil action shall be the exclusive remedy for
recovering damages resulting from such actions.
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Emphasis added.)
20
A plaintiff suing under section 7433 must exhaust administrative remedies.
21
26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1. The Complaint does not allege
22
that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court
23
dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for damages. See Gray v. United States, 723 F.3d 795
24
(7th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit under 26 U.S.C.
25
§ 7433 because the plaintiff had not presented her claims to the IRS prior to filing
26
suit).
27
//
28
//
7
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
1
III. CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons discussed above, the United States’ motion to dismiss [Doc.
3
11] is GRANTED. The Court quashes the service of process on Defendants. The
4
United States is substituted in as the proper party defendant, and this case is
5
dismissed as against the Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service,
6
Director of Internal Revenue Service, and “Layne Carter.” If Plaintiff wishes to
7
proceed with this case, Plaintiff must serve the United States in conformity with
8
Rule 4(i). Plaintiff has 30 days from the filing of this Order to properly serve the
9
United States with the Summons and Complaint and file the proof of service.
10
Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action.
11
The Court also dismisses the following claims: (1) Plaintiff’s refund claims
12
for tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; (2) Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief;
13
and (3) Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages. Plaintiff’s refund claims for tax
14
years 2002 and 2003 remain pending.
15
16
If Plaintiff properly serves the United States with the Summons and
Complaint, Plaintiff may seek leave from the Court to amend his Complaint.
17
After the United States’ motion to dismiss was submitted on the papers,
18
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to serve
19
the proper defendant, the dismissal of the majority of Plaintiff’s claims, and the
20
potential amendment of the Complaint, the Court DENIES without prejudice
21
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18].
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: July 11, 2016
24
25
26
27
28
8
15cv1495 BTM(WVG)
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?