JOHNSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Filing 4

ENTRY granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Dismissing Complaint - Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for the reasons set forth. The plaintiff shall have through June 30, 2017, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 6/9/2017. (copy via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ZEDRICK JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.

No. 1:17-cv-01862-LJM-MJD

Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is granted.
Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, the plaintiff still owes the entire filing fee. “All [28
U.S.C.] § 1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains
liable for them, and for other costs, although poverty may make collection impossible.”
Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
II.
District courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen
complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis before service on the
defendants, and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive
dismissal under this rule,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the
plaintiff are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff alleges that the mother of his children is letting multiple individuals use
his children’s social security numbers for tax purposes and that she is involved in other
fraudulent conduct. He alleges further that he has visited the Internal Revenue Service
about this issue on multiple occasions, but they “don’t care.” He names the Internal
Revenue Service as the defendant in this action.
Based on the foregoing allegations, the Court is unable to discern a viable claim
for relief against the Internal Revenue Service. His allegations to not state a cognizable
legal claim, and his request for relief appears to ask that the Court help him investigate
the alleged fraudulent conduct of his children’s mother. But he does not state any injury
personal to him, nor can the Court cannot initiate its own investigations into fraudulent
conduct, as it is the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch, that is responsible for such
investigations.
For the reasons, the plaintiff has not stated a viable claim for relief. The Court
notifies the plaintiff that the Internal Revenue Service publishes on its website several
ways in which citizens can report fraud regarding tax filings.

III.
The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for the reasons set forth above.
The plaintiff shall have through June 30, 2017, in which to show cause why
Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue.

See Luevano v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to
amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant’s case could be
tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be
heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: _____________
6/9/2017

Distribution:
ZEDRICK JOHNSON
3270 LuPine Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46224

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana