WARREN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [#26]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DASHONTA WARREN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-13406

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS [#26]
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 26.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading
requirements. Id. at pg. 1 (Pg. ID 371). For the reasons discussed below, this Court
will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action in state court. See Dkt. No. 1. On October 18,
2017, Defendants removed the action to federal court. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff then
filed several motions for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, default judgment,

1

and to compel. See Dkts. No. 11, 13, 15, 16, 24, 29. On December 18, 2017,
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 26. Plaintiff responded on
December 26, 2017. Dkt. No. 28. Defendants filed a reply on January 9, 2018.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss. 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 allegations present
plausible claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must “allege enough facts to make it plausible that the defendant bears
legal liability.” Agema v. City of Allegan, 826 F.3d 326, 331 (6th Cir. 2016). The
facts need to make it more than “merely possible that the defendant is liable; they
must make it plausible.” Id. “Bare assertions of legal liability absent some
corresponding facts are insufficient to state a claim.” Id. A claim will be dismissed
“if the facts as alleged are insufficient to make a valid claim or if the claim shows
on its face that relief is barred by an affirmative defense.” Riverview Health Inst.,
LLC v. Med. Mut. Of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010).
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any cognizable legal
claims that are grounded in fact. Dkt. No. 26, pg. 11–13 (Pg. ID 381–83). This
Court agrees.

2

Plaintiff’s complaint does not explicitly set forward the cause(s) of action
that he is bringing against Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint is principally
comprised of many documents which the Plaintiff failed to explain the significance
of. Both this Court and Defendants are unclear about precisely what claims the
Plaintiff is bringing. See Dkt. No. 26, pg. 7 (Pg. ID 377).
The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss attempts to identify Plaintiff’s claims.
Defendants identified claims of failing to release outstanding tax liens and levies
and failure to process tax returns. Id. at pg. 8 (Pg. ID 378). Defendants also
identified claims of breach of contract and breach of trust. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint
does not set forth facts sufficient to support any of these claims. Plaintiff’s
complaint does not state any facts to support the tax claims. His complaint does not
demonstrate that he paid taxes for the years he is alleging a refund for, nor does it
show why he is entitled to a refund. Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege facts
sufficient to support a finding that there was a contract or a trust agreement
between the parties. The documents included in Plaintiff’s complaint are not
jointly signed, which would indicate a contract agreement. Plaintiff does not bring
forth any other evidence, like correspondence with Defendants, that would indicate
the parties entered into a mutual agreement. Further, Plaintiff’s response does not
attempt to clarify any of the deficiencies cited by Defendants. The Court concludes

3

that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth cognizable legal claims for which this
Court may grant relief.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions 11, 13, 15, 16, 24, 29 are dismissed as
moot.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

January 19, 2018
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

4