Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00402/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00402-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KIRELL FRANCIS TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

B. OTT, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:16-cv-0402-EFB P1

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1361.2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 

is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 1

 Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order directing him to complete and return the 

form indicating either his consent to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge or request for 

reassignment to a district judge. Accordingly, the clerk will be directed to randomly assign this 

case to a district judge. 

2

 Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. His application, 

however, indicates that his “gross pay” amounts to $58,406,400. Id. In light of the 

recommendation herein, the court need not resolve the pending application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (requiring court to screen a prisoner’s complaint “as 

soon as practicable”). 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

Petitioner does not name himself as a party to this action; rather he lists the “United 

States of America, Internal Revenue Service” as plaintiff (with himself as attorney for the 

United States), and B. Ott as respondent. His claim is that B. Ott, a licensed psychiatric 

technician employed at California State Prison, Sacramento, “has failed to provide defendant’s 

taxpayer ID number to plaintiff for the purpose of being entitled to the entire amount of Federal 

and State income tax withheld on form 1099-OID that must be included in defendant’s ‘gross 

income’ after the defendant had ‘complete dominion over’ the said ‘original issue price’ of a $2 

million dollar banker’s acceptance issued by Bettis Kirell Francis in the amount of 

$1,820,000.00.” 3

 ECF No. 1 at 3. 

///// 

 3

 Petitioner raised nearly identical allegations in Taylor v. IRS, No. 2:16-cv-0140-TLNGGH (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1. After the court recommended dismissal of the action for lack of 

standing and as frivolous, petitioner voluntarily dismissed the action. Id. ECF No. 8. 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

In addition to the vague, conclusory, and nonsensical nature of petitioner’s allegations, 

there are several reasons why this action must be dismissed. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 325, 328 (1989) (allegations are frivolous when they lack even “an arguable basis either in 

law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”). First, Taylor has not named 

himself as a party and therefore has no standing to bring a suit on behalf of the IRS. Halet v. 

Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1982) (party must assert his own rights not those of 

third parties). Second, Taylor purports to bring this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking a writ 

of mandamus. Section 1361 provides for original jurisdiction to compel an employee or agent of 

the United States to perform a duty owed to a plaintiff. Taylor has identified “B. Ott,” apparently 

a state employee, as the defendant/respondent. Therefore, petitioner has not shown that 

mandamus relief is applicable. 

For these reasons, the court finds that the petition for writ of mandamus should be 

summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and that leave to amend would be futile. See 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district 

courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are 

not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: June 9, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00402-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 4