Richmond et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 20

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 2/1/2013: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 17 is granted, and the Court will consider the proposed amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on January 29, 2013. Since it is clear that Plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim, a responsive pleading will not be necessary. Therefore, based on the below, the instant action is dismissed. The motion for appointment of counsel 17 is denied as moot. Civil case terminated. [For further details see opinion.] Mailed notice. (np, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

12 C 6917

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

2/1/2013

Peggy Richmond vs. United States of America, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint [17] is granted,
and the Court will consider the proposed amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on January 29, 2013. Since it
is clear that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim, a responsive pleading will not be
necessary. Therefore, based on the below, the instant action is dismissed. The motion for appointment of
counsel [17] is denied as moot. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Peggy Richmond’s (Richmond) motion for
reconsideration, motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and motion for appointment of
counsel. In the original complaint filed in this case, two Plaintiffs were listed in the caption. On September
11, 2012, the court gave Plaintiffs until September 20, 2012, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately
and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Plaintiffs were warned that if they failed to pay
the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by September
20, 2012, this case would be dismissed. On September 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed new in forma pauperis
application forms, but once again, they were not properly completed. Since Plaintiffs failed to pay the filing
fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by September 20, 2012,
the court dismissed the instant action on October 2, 2012. Richmond subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the court denied on January 24, 2013. On January 29, 2013, Richmond filed the
instant motions.
Richmond continues to argue that the court erred in dismissing the instant action, but Richmond has
still failed to show that the court erred in dismissing the instant action. However, the docket reflects that on
12C6917 Peggy Richmond vs. United States of America, et al.

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
January 29, 2013, Richmond paid the filing fee in this case. Therefore, the court will grant the motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, and will consider the proposed amended complaint filed by
Richmond on January 29, 2013. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (Section 1915(e)), “[n]otwithstanding any
filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. . . .” Id. Richmond filed the second amended complaint pro se, and thus the court construes
the complaint liberally. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000)(stating that “pro
se complaints are to be liberally construed and not held to the stringent standards expected of pleadings
drafted by lawyers”).
Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on August 28, 2012. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint
on September 6, 2012. On January 29, 2013, Richmond filed the second amended complaint listing only
herself as a Plaintiff. In the second amended complaint, Richmond is suing the United States of America
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Richmond contends that the FBI “failed to protect [her] civil
rights,” and “failed to investigate federal and state revenue violations. . . .” (A. Compl. 4). Richmond also
contends that there was a “conspiracy against rights to exercise civil rights,” and that there was a “failure to
follow Administrative Procedure Act.” (A. Compl. 4). Richmond allegedly apparently contacted the FBI,
and “[t]he [FBI] Agent insist[ed] there is nothing they are authorized to make a report or complaint. . . .” (A.
Compl.4). Richmond contends that “every Agency is required to follow” the “Administrative Code.”
(Compl. 4).
When viewing Richmond’s second amended complaint against the United States and the FBI along
with the prior complaints, it is apparent that the alleged constitutional violations in this case relate to a
dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the United States Tax
Court (Tax Court) relating to taxes owed by Richmond. In the original complaint filed in this action,
Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the IRS improperly calculated her and her spouse’s taxes relating
to their pension and Social Security benefits. (Compl. 4). Attached as an exhibit to the amended complaint
is an order from the Tax Court showing that Richmond had argued before the Tax Court that the IRS
“improperly considered Ms. Richmond’s pension benefits when calculating how much of Mr. Richmond’s
12C6917 Peggy Richmond vs. United States of America, et al.

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
Social Security benefits should be taxed.” (A. Compl. 15). The exhibit reflects that the Tax Court ruled in
favor of the IRS and denied Richmond’s subsequent motion to vacate the ruling. (A. Compl. 15-16). In the
amended complaint in the instant action, Richmond continues to argue that the IRS erred in calculating the
taxes she owed relating to pension and Social Security benefits. (A. Compl. 10-11). Richmond contends in
the amended complaint that such actions “violated Administrative Procedures.” (A. Compl. 10). Thus, it is
clear that the reference in the current second amended complaint to the “failure to follow Administrative
Procedure Act,” and Richmond’s contact with the FBI to address such a failure, that Richmond was seeking
to challenge the decision by the IRS and by the Tax Court. The instant action is not the proper forum in
which to appeal the ruling of the Tax Court. To the extent that Richmond has presented a conclusory
statement as to a “conspiracy” against her, Richmond has failed to provide detailed facts to plausibly suggest
such a claim. Even when liberally construing the allegations in the second amended complaint, Richmond
has failed to plausibly suggest a federal claim. Since it is clear that Richmond’s second amended complaint
fails to state a claim, a responsive pleading will not be necessary. Therefore, based on the above, the instant
action is dismissed. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

12C6917 Peggy Richmond vs. United States of America, et al.

Page 3 of 3