Richardson v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT: The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case (Without Prejudice) . Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 11/15/2022. See attached document for full details. (mab)

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM
JASON RICHARDSON,
v.

Plaintiff,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a review of pro se Plaintiff Jason Richardson’s
Complaint, ECF No. [1], docketed on November 7, 2022. Richardson has not paid the filing fee
but has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. [3]. Because Richardson is a pro se litigant
who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)
apply. Under the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines
that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having screened Richardson’s Complaint, the Court concludes it
is subject to dismissal.
To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “A
party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable
to a single set of circumstances.” Id. 10(b). More importantly, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).
Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018). Still,
a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. See
Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).
Richardson’s Complaint is written on the form for suits arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
See generally ECF No. [1]. However, Richardson does not claim § 1983 or Bivens as a basis for
this Court’s jurisdiction over this case. See id. at 3-4 (crossing out the Basis for Jurisdiction section
of the form). Richardson’s Complaint asserts no basis for jurisdiction whatsoever. Failure to assert
a basis for jurisdiction is ground alone for dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).
The Complaint also suffers from an infirmity related to sovereign immunity. “Absent a
waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” JBP
Acquisitions, LP v. U.S. ex rel. FDIC, 224 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). “The United States has waived its sovereign immunity in order
to allow taxpayers to file actions seeking tax refunds” under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(1) and district
courts have jurisdiction over such actions against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(a)(1). Mut. Assur., Inc. v. United States, 56 F.3d 1353, 1355 (11th Cir. 1995). However,
prior to filing suit against the IRS, a taxpayer must first file “a claim for refund or credit” with the
IRS. § 7422(a). Failure to file such an “administrative refund claim with the IRS in accordance

2

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM
with the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the
maintenance of a tax refund suit.” Id. at 1356.
Richardson states that he “filed all necessary paperwork to obtain the allotted stimulus
payments.” ECF No. [1] at 8. It is unclear what paperwork Richardson is referring to. Because
Plaintiff has not alleged that he filed a refund claim, he has failed to meet the jurisdictional
requirement of § 7422(a).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Richardson’s Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and all pending
motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 15, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Jason Richardson
200128036
Miami-Dade County-PDC
Pretrial Detention Center
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1321 NW 13th Street
Miami, FL 33125
PRO SE

3