Shuster v. Mnuchin et al

Filing 5

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/6/17. The Court, for the reasons stated in its prior order, dismisses this action pursuant to the Court's authority established in Apple v. Glenn. (Related Doc. 4 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: KAREN L. SHUSTER, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : STEVEN TURNER MNUCHIN, et al., : : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1313 OPINION & ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Pro se plaintiff Karen L. Shuster filed this fee-paid civil rights action against United States and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials and employees, alleging they knowingly and illegally taxed her “sources” and illegally placed liens on her property. Because her complaint on its face fails to allege any plausible federal claim on which relief may granted against the defendants, the Court issued an order, on October 26, 2017, allowing the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days setting forth a valid federal claim against proper defendants. (See Doc. No. 4.) More than 30 days have now passed, and the plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). A federal district court has authority to dismiss any complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) “when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Consistent with Apple v. Glenn, the Court finds that the instant action warrants sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the Court explained in its October 26th order, taxpayer suits for damages cannot be brought against individual federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are barred by the Declaratory Judgment and Tax Anti-Injunction Acts. (See Doc. No. 4.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order, this action is now dismissed pursuant to the Court’s authority established in Apple v. Glenn. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2017 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?