Tyrus v. Department of Treasury et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting defendants' Motions to Dismiss 19 65 , denying 21 plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss third party claim. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TYRUS L. TINNON, SR.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-12352
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOC. 19 and 65],
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD PARTY CLAIM [DOC. 21]

Plaintiff Tyrus Tinnon, Sr., filed this action against the United States Department
of Treasury, various federal governmental entities and officials, Citizens Financial Group
and Bruce Van Saun (Citizens Defendants) and Ellen Allemany. Plaintiff’s action
appears to involve federal taxes allegedly owed by plaintiff and levies filed by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with regard to those taxes. Plaintiff appears to be
attempting to restrain the collection of tax, seeking a declaratory judgment of some kind,
and seeking money damages for various constitutional and statutory violations.
The matter is before the court on the United States’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, the Citizens Defendants and Ms. Allemany’s motion to dismiss, and plaintiff’s
motion to dismiss third party claim. The matter is also before the court on the Citizens
Defendants and Ms. Allemany’s motion for protective order and to quash subpoenas.
The court is familiar with the case and has read the pleadings filed by both sides. The
-1-

court does not believe that it would benefit from oral argument in this case and able to
decide the motions on the briefs.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2014, plaintiff filed his pro se complaint against the defendants.
Other than oblique references to tax garnishments initiated by the IRS, the allegations in
the complaint are difficult to decipher. Plaintiff refers to admiralty and maritime law, as
well as fraudulent acts and violations of his “U.S. Constitutional and Civil Rights” by IRS
agents. The complaint is void of any factual allegations and consists mostly of
recitations of law. Plaintiff begins by accusing the Internal Revenue Service and
Citizens Financial Group of failing to produce “A Delegation of Authority order from
United States Continental Congress in North America.” From there plaintiff cites
statutes and cases regarding tax collection, but never identifies specific actions taken by
defendants. Defendant Citizens Financial Group is referenced twice in the complaint,
but not in connection with any claim for relief or underlying factual allegations. Finally,
Mr. Van Saun and Ms. Allemany are named as defendants in the caption of the lawsuit,
but are not referenced anywhere in the actual complaint.
ANALYSIS
I. Dismissal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) allows the Court to make an assessment as to whether the plaintiff
has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Under the Supreme Court’s
articulation of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554-56 (2007), the Court must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff,
accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and determine whether plaintiff’s factual
-2-

allegations present plausible claims. “[N]aked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” are insufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, plaintiff’s pleading for relief must provide “more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ass’n of
Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and quotations omitted). Even though the
complaint need not contain “detailed” factual allegations, its “factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of
the allegations in the complaint are true.” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555).
Plaintiff’s complaint consists of unsupported and nonsensical statements and
conclusions, which fail to place any of the defendants on notice about the nature of
plaintiff’s purported claims. It is impossible to decipher the theory of the claims set forth
by plaintiff. The court must dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim as
required under Rule 12(b)(6).
II. Pleading Standards
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) mandates that a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e)(1)
requires that “each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.”
Pleading requirements exist so that neither the court nor opposing counsel are required
to expend time and effort mulling through allegations to determine whether the essential
claims asserted can be understood and supported. The Sixth Circuit has held that
pleading requirements are mandatory for pro se litigants because a court “should not
-3-

have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted.” Denham v. Lord, 2010 U.S. LEXIS
25940, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2010).
Plaintiff has devoted large sections of his complaint to statements of law rather
than factual averments. The defendants contend that they cannot make out any
specific claims against them, which is understandable because the court is likewise
unable to determine the nature of the claims asserted.
Where a complaint fails to conform to the Federal Rules, and does not permit the
defendants to discern and present a defense, the court must dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim and failure to abide by pleading standards.
III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s pleading, which is entitled a motion to dismiss third party claim with
prejudice for failure to comply with LR 11.1, does not seek dismissal of a counterclaim
(because none has been made), but rather is based on the Citizens Defendants’ and
Ms. Allemany’s motion to dismiss. Neither the factual or legal basis of plaintiff’s motion,
nor the relief requested, is clear from the face of the pleading. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 7(b)(1)(B) requires that all motions “state with particularity the grounds for
seeking the order.” In addition, all motions filed before this court must be accompanied
by a supporting brief, which must contain a concise statement of the issues presented,
as well as the controlling or most appropriate authority for the relief sought. L.R.
7.1(d)(2). Plaintiff’s motion fails to satisfy both of these rules. Form this reason,
plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

-4-

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motions to dismiss complaint are
GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and for failure to conform to the pleading rules set forth in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is DENIED for failure to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this district.
Dated: October 8, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 8, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Tyrus L. Tinnon, Sr., 180 East Dakota St.,
Detroit, MI 48203.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-5-