Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06526/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06526-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVALDO LENCI,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06526-TSH 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 14

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Ivaldo Lenci brings this complaint for declaratory relief, asking the Court 

to “honor [his] intentions to establish a new and better Republic.” Pending before the Court is the 

government’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 

ECF No. 14. Lenci filed an Opposition (ECF No. 20) and the government filed a Reply (ECF No. 

21). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES

the May 21, 2020 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, 

relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion 

for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Lenci filed his complaint on October 10, 2019. ECF No. 1. In it, he sets forth his vision 

for a better government. He begins with a history of “the law of nature” and then declares 

“It is [his] understanding the Constitution and Declaration of 

Independence of the U.S.A. dictates its government to make available 

to their citizens the proper: Education, Health Care, Welfare, Security 

to implement ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all me are 

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit 

of Happiness...’ to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 7
2

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

Northern District of California

entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that 

they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”...

Compl. ¶ 7 (ellipses in original). Lenci does not identify any causes of action or identify any 

particular way in which he was allegedly wronged, other than expressing his general unhappiness 

with the City of San Rafael’s assessment of $7,949.26 in property taxes related to the home he 

owns in San Rafael, referring to it as “LEGAL SLAVERY.” Id. ¶ 30. Instead, the nine-page, 

single spaced pleading is devoted to Lenci’s ideas for better government. He alleges that “[a]fter 

studying all the major religions of the world; the economy of Communism, Democracy, 

Monarchy, Republic, etc., [he] found out that all of them have some good merit but the United 

States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is the best.” Id. ¶ 20. Lenci has “selected” 

and proposes “what [he] believes to be their good merits to form . . . a workable government that 

will promote peace, security and prosperity in the world.” Id. ¶ 21.

Lenci goes on to make some specific suggestions for this “new and better” government, 

including:

• Making “[o]ur God-Creator” “part of this government” (id. ¶ 24);

• Referring to “each human being” “with the title of prince or princess” (id. ¶ 38);

• Providing each household $125,000 to “create a family crest” (id. ¶ 38);

• Implementing a “flat tax,” which taxes consumption and not income (id. ¶¶ 41, 65-69);

• Eliminating property taxes on people’s homes (id. ¶ 70);

• Providing universal health care (id. ¶ 43); and

• Providing pensions to the disabled and elderly (id. ¶¶ 44-45).

The government filed the present motion on April 13, 2020. It argues Lenci lacks standing 

to proceed because he does not identify any way in which he suffered a legally cognizable harm. 

Mot. at 3. It further argues Lenci fails to identify a single cause of action or the basis of a waiver 

of sovereign immunity, and therefore fails to state a claim against the United States. Id. As to 

Lenci’s allegations regarding San Rafael’s property taxes, the government argues the Tax 

Injunction Act does not permit the Court to consider any such challenges. Id. 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[i]t 

is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 

the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.; Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a lawsuit 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe 

Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the attack is facial, the 

court determines whether the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient on their face to 

invoke federal jurisdiction, accepting all material allegations in the complaint as true and 

construing them in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 

(1975). Where the attack is factual, however, “the court need not presume the truthfulness of the 

plaintiff’s allegations.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. In resolving a factual dispute as 

to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the 

complaint without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Id.; McCarthy 

v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a court “may review any 

evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of 

jurisdiction”). 

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plausibility does not mean 

probability, but it requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 687 (2009). A complaint must therefore provide a defendant with 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(quotations and citation omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (A complaint must contain a “short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). In considering a 

motion to dismiss, the court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes the 

pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine 

Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). 

However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to 

threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “court should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (citations and quotations omitted). However, a court “may exercise its discretion to deny 

leave to amend due to ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party. . ., [and] futility of amendment.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 

892-93 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962)).

IV. DISCUSSION

Having reviewed Lenci’s allegations, the Court finds he lacks standing to pursue his 

generalized grievances and suggestions for better government. Standing derives “[f]rom Article 

III’s limitation of the judicial power to resolving ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ and the separationof-powers principles underlying that limitation[.]” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control 

Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 125 (2014); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), 

as revised (May 24, 2016). “The doctrine limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a 

lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547. 

To establish Article III standing, plaintiff must show: (1) injury in fact, (2) that is fairly 

traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

favorable judicial decision. Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 

(1992)). “The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing 

these elements.” Id. (citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990)). 

To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he suffered “an invasion of a legally 

protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted); Lexmark Int’l, 572 U.S. 

at 125 (a “plaintiff must have suffered or be imminently threatened with a concrete and 

particularized ‘injury in fact’ that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 

likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”). “An allegation that an individual has a 

right to a particular kind of government conduct and that the government has violated that right by 

acting differently cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Article III standing.” Duran v. Lollis, 

2019 WL 691203, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754

(1984)). 

Lenci’s complaint, which asks the Court to “establish a new and better Republic” presents 

only a generalized grievance. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to recognize a 

generalized grievance against allegedly illegal government conduct as sufficient to confer

standing.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts are to refrain “from 

adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized 

grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” 

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 

U.S. 464, 473 (1982). While Lenci appears to have noble intentions in bringing his complaint, 

“[f]ederal courts are not publicly funded forums to vent public grievances.” Duran, 2019 WL 

691203, at *4 (citing Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 475). Therefore, Lenci must allege “a distinct and 

palpable injury to himself” to have standing to bring suit. Warth, 422 U.S. at 501.

To the extent Lenci brings specific allegations regarding his property tax payments to San 

Rafael, the Tax Injunction Act makes it clear that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a 

grievance. The Act provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the 

assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Property tax challenges “fall 

squarely within the bar raised by the Tax Injunction Act.” See, e.g., Ou-Young v. Stone, 2020 WL 

1288450, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020). Accordingly, neither Lenci’s generalized vision for “a 

new and better Republic” nor his dissatisfaction regarding his property taxes may be advanced in 

this litigation. 

For these reasons, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over Lenci’s claims and they must be 

dismissed. The Court therefore must decide whether leave to amend is warranted. Leave 

ordinarily must be granted unless one or more of the following factors is present: (1) undue delay, 

(2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue 

prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of amendment. Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892-93. 

The first four factors do not appear to be at issue in this case because the government’s motion is 

directed to the original complaint and there is no indication Lenci brings his complaint in bad 

faith. As to futility of amendment, Lenci cannot bring generalized claims against the government 

for “a new and better Republic,” and his specific allegations regarding property taxes are barred by 

the Tax Injunction Act, but in reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the 

pleadings and accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson, 551 U.S. 

at 94. 

Given this liberal pleading standard, the Court finds it appropriate to give Lenci an 

opportunity to amend his complaint. However, the Court advises Lenci that he must demonstrate 

a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Further, in order to comply with Rule 8’s pleading 

requirement, Lenci must state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to the complaint and 

explain why each named defendant is being sued by making specific factual allegations that 

connect each defendant with the alleged wrongdoing. He must also allege separate causes of 

action, state a constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and allege facts showing 

each defendant’s wrongful acts alleged in each cause of action, as well as his harm or injury.

Finally, the Court advises Lenci that, unless it has expressly waived its sovereign 

immunity, the United States and its agencies are immune from suit. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. 

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 474 (1994) (citations omitted). A “waiver of sovereign immunity must be 

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Northern District of California

unequivocally expressed in statutory text,” and the waiver must be “clearly evident from the 

language of the statute.” FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284, 290 (2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, federal courts lack subject matter 

jurisdiction over cases against the United States and its agencies. FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475. Thus, if 

Lenci chooses to amend his complaint, he must establish that the government has waived its 

sovereign immunity for any claim(s) he seeks to bring against it.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Lenci shall file any amended complaint within 28 days of this 

order. Lenci is warned that if he fails to timely file an amended complaint, this action will likely 

be dismissed on the grounds set forth above and/or for failure to diligently prosecute.

Lenci may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by 

the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco, by calling 415-782-8982. 

At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide 

basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Lenci may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s 

Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every 

stage of your case, including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available online at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06526-TSH Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 Page 7 of 7