Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LINN BRYAN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff the United States of America filed this action to reduce to judgment 

federal tax assessments against Defendant Mark Linn Bryan and to foreclose federal 

tax liens on Defendant’s community property located in Lodi, California on October 

31, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff amended its complaint on June 23, 2023, adding 

additional claims against Defendant. (ECF No. 76.) Defendant filed a Motion to 

Dismiss on July 21, 2023, arguing that (1) Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Delegation 

Order 5-2 prohibits the IRS from determining his tax liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 

6020(b), and (2) the IRS cannot assess taxes against him because he does not deal in 

alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. (ECF No. 80.) Defendant subsequently filed a second 

Motion to Dismiss on August 8, 2023, arguing this Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, (ECF No. 85,) and four more Motions to Dismiss on August 25, 2023, 

arguing (1) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, (ECF No. 92,) (2) Plaintiff failed to join 

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 107 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 5
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

an indispensable party, (ECF No. 93,) (3) there was insufficient service of process, (ECF 

No. 94,) and (4) venue is improper, (ECF No. 96.)

For the reasons set forth below, these Motions will be DENIED.

ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, the Court generally observes that many of the 

arguments raised in Defendant's Motions sound in sovereign citizen and/or “taxdefier” ideology. “Courts across the country have uniformly rejected arguments 

based on the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible.” 

Peyton v. Cates, No. 21-cv-00740-DAD-EPG (PC), 2021 WL 4206432, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 16, 2021) (citations and quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has rejected 

arguments premised on the ideology as “utterly meritless.” See United States v. 

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s

arguments are based on such ideology, they are nothing more than “frivolous and 

nonsensical recitations of previously rejected arguments brought by other litigants 

hoping to avoid tax liability.” United States v. Schmidt, No. 16-cv-985-RSL, 2017 WL 

3385864, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2017). For the sake of judicial economy, the Court 

will only briefly address Defendant’s arguments below.

Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 80,) was untimely, as the 

amended complaint was mailed to Defendant on June 23, 2023, which made 

Defendant’s deadline to file a responsive pleading July 17, 2023. (ECF No. 75 at 3 

(“Defendant[] shall file responsive pleadings within twenty-one (21) days of service of 

the First Amended Complaint.”);) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (“[S]ervice is complete upon 

mailing.”); Hernandez v. Gates, No. 00-cv-07163-GAF-AJWx, 2004 WL 291225, at *1 

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004) (“It is generally accepted that ‘[s]ervice by mail is 

accomplished, for purposes of Rule 5, when documents are placed in the hands of the 

United States Post Office or in a Post Office Box.’”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (giving an 

additional three days when service is made by mail). Defendant filed his Motion on 

July 21, four days past the deadline. 

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 107 Filed 09/21/23 Page 2 of 5
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

Even if Defendant’s Motion were timely, his arguments are largely unintelligible 

and meritless for the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Opposition. (ECF No. 81.) First, 

Defendant’s contention that IRS Delegation Order 5-2

1 supposedly prohibits the IRS 

from determining an individual’s tax liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) is untrue.

Congress empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to execute an income tax return 

for any person who fails to file a return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). Delegation Order 5-

2 simply delegates this authority to various IRS employees. Courts in this circuit have 

repeatedly recognized the authority of the IRS to prepare substitute income tax 

returns for taxpayers who do not file a Form 1040. See, e.g., Roat v. Comm'r, 847 F.2d 

1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that “section 6020(b)(1) simply endows the 

Secretary with ‘[a]uthority’ to execute a return” on behalf of a taxpayer who does not 

file one himself); Rapp v. Comm’r, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir.1985); In re Smith, 527 

B.R. 14, 18 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd, 828 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Section 6020(b) 

refers to a return prepared by the IRS when the taxpayer fails to prepare a timely 

return or makes a false or fraudulent return, and the IRS must prepare the return 

based upon such information as it obtains itself.”); In re Ashe, 228 B.R. 457, 460 (C.D. 

Cal. 1998) (“When a party fails to file a return, or willfully files a false or fraudulent 

return, the IRS shall prepare the return from its own information.”). Second, nothing in

section 6020(b) limits its applicability to the internal revenue laws concerning alcohol, 

tobacco and firearms. See Stamos v. Comm’r of IRS, No. 91–70121, 1992 WL 45780, 

at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 1992). Thus, Defendant’s Motion will be denied.

Defendant’s successive Motion to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 85), largely suffers from 

the same flaws as the first. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter

1 Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of Delegation Order 5-2. Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Evidence 201, courts shall take notice, when requested and provided with sufficient information, of 

facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they “can be accurately and readily 

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

Public records and government documents drawn from reliable sources on the Internet may be 

judicially noticed. See Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 868, 879 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The text of 

Delegation Order 5-2 was obtained from the IRS's website. See https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-

002-002#idm140336980320784. Thus, the Court will take judicial notice of Delegation Order 5-2.

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 107 Filed 09/21/23 Page 3 of 5
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

because Plaintiff’s action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United 

States. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 (“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law 

and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.”); 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are meritless, and his Motion 

will be denied.

Concerning Defendant’s remaining Motions, the Court concurs with Plaintiff 

that Defendant waived his arguments concerning lack of personal jurisdiction, (ECF 

No. 92,) improper service, (ECF No. 94,) and improper venue, (ECF No. 96,) by failing 

to raise them in his first Motion to Dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). Even if these 

arguments were not waived, they still fail on the merits. First, the Court has general 

jurisdiction over Defendant as he is domiciled in California. See Daimler AG v. 

Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014) (for an individual, the paradigm forum for the 

exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile); (ECF No. 76 at ¶ 4.) 

Defendant’s Motion does not contest this fact. (ECF No. 92.) Second, Plaintiff 

properly served Defendant under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B) and 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b) by leaving a copy of the summons, 

complaint, and other documents with Defendant’s friend Craig (or Kraig) Patterson at 

Defendant’s residence and thereafter mailing copies of the documents to Defendant. 

(See ECF No. 25 (proof of service).) Further, as Plaintiff has pointed out, Defendant 

filed a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance of Summons,” (ECF No. 14,) within eight

days of copies of the complaint and summons being left with Patterson, confirming 

Defendant’s awareness of this suit. See United States v. Kennedy, No. 21-cv-01964-

WBS-CKD, 2022 WL 4130719, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2022). Finally, venue is proper 

in this district because the community property Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on is

located in Lodi, California, which is within this judicial district, and the tax liabilities at 

issue in this case arose in this judicial district. (See ECF No. 76 at ¶¶ 1, 4;) see also 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1396; L.R. 120(d). Thus, these Motions will be denied. 

////

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 107 Filed 09/21/23 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Defendant’s final Motion to Dismiss, which alleges Plaintiff failed to join an 

indispensable party, (ECF No. 93,) is similarly meritless. Defendant alleges IRS 

Revenue Officer (“RO”) David Barbearo, the officer assigned to collect Defendant’s 

delinquent taxes, is an indispensable party to this action. (ECF No. 93 at 1–2.) RO 

Barbearo is not a required party because his absence from this case does not prevent 

the Court from according complete relief among the existing parties, and RO 

Barbearo does not claim an interest in the subject of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

19(a)(1). Accordingly, this Motion will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 80, 85, 92, 93, 94, 

and 96) are DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file an answer to Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint, (ECF No. 76,) within 14 days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2023 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC4 – bryan22cv1962.MTD

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 107 Filed 09/21/23 Page 5 of 5