Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00158/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00158-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George O. Thurman and )

Elizabeth L. Thurman, )

)

 Plaintiffs, ) No. CV 11-158-TUC-DCB-DTF

)

 v. )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Internal Revenue Service, )

)

 Defendant. )

 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiffs have not responded. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice in this

Court, the matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for a report and recommendation.

The Magistrate recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the record,

enter an order granting the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 16, 2011, alleging that the United States violated

an agreement between them and the government should be precluded from collecting on an

alleged tax debt. (Doc. 1.) The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it

failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity, thus, the Court did not have subject matter

jurisdiction. (Docs. 25, 29.) Further, the Court noted that the facts alleged were outside the

applicable two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs were allowed until May 21, 2012, to file

an amended complaint correcting these problems. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a

document captioned “Reply to Bury Order Dated 30 April 2012.” (Doc. 30.) On May 14,

Case 4:11-cv-00158-DCB Document 33 Filed 07/11/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

2012, Plaintiffs filed a revised version of that document, which they noted superseded the

prior filing, and this document was captioned in part, “Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 31.) This

document states that Plaintiffs do not know how to address subject matter jurisdiction and

they are at the mercy of the Court. The document goes on to reiterate the factual allegations

that form the basis of their action against Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the

Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs have not responded to that motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is not in compliance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) or the Court’s order, and it fails to allege a basis for the

Court’s jurisdiction. 

In the prior Report and Recommendation, which was adopted by the District Judge

(Doc. 29), the Court told Plaintiffs that they had to plead the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction,

including a waiver of sovereign immunity. (Doc. 25 at 5.) Plaintiffs were also warned that

failure to comply with all rules of procedure could result in dismissal. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a) requires that a plaintiff set forth a statement of the court’s jurisdiction, the

claim entitling the person to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint satisfies only the second requirement. It does not contain a statement of

jurisdiction nor a demand for relief. Because Plaintiffs failed to plead jurisdiction in the

Amended Complaint, it is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply

with the Court’s order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Plaintiffs have failed to cure the jurisdictional defect for which the original complaint

was dismissed. The United States, including its agencies, can only be sued to the extent it has

expressly waived its sovereign immunity. Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1117

(9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs do not invoke any statute providing jurisdiction, nor do they cite

any authority for the waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to this suit.

Further, the Court informed Plaintiffs that there was a two-year statute of limitations

for refund claims and monetary damages. (Doc. 25 at 3; Doc. 29 at 4.) In the Amended

Complaint, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts within the limitations period and essentially

Case 4:11-cv-00158-DCB Document 33 Filed 07/11/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

concede that they are outside the statutory limitation for such an action. (Doc. 31 at 4.) 

Finally, failure to respond to a motion to dismiss can be deemed consent to the

granting of the motion. LRCiv 7.2(i). For all of these reasons, the Amended Complaint

should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

grant the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 32).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00158-DCB Document 33 Filed 07/11/12 Page 3 of 3