Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00780/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00780-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7422 IRS: Refund 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAM HERAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for a more definite statement 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(e).1 ECF No. 16. In addition to filing an 

opposition to the motion, 2 ECF No. 22, plaintiff has filed motions to stay, motion for sanctions, 

and a request for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 27, 31. The court determined that oral 

argument would not materially assist the court in resolution of the motions and they were ordered 

submitted without argument. ECF No. 26. 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2

 Plaintiff’s opposition also requested an entry of default against defendant, alleging that 

defendant failed to properly respond. ECF No. 22 at 1-2. The Clerk construed it as a request for 

clerk’s entry of default, which was denied because defendant has appeared and is defending this 

action. ECF No. 23. 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

For the following reasons, defendant’s motion for a more definite statement must be 

granted, and plaintiff’s motions to stay, motion for sanctions, and request for appointment of 

counsel must be denied. 

I. Background 

 On April 22, 2013, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the 

United States. ECF No. 1. The complaint alleges that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) 

audited plaintiff’s 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax returns and illegally collected taxes from him at a 

higher and arbitrary rate for the 1998-2001 and 2008-2010 tax years. Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges 

that he attempted to appeal these arbitrary collections, but was not provided an appeal process. 

Id. In addition to money damages, plaintiff seeks an injunction against the government 

restraining it from collecting taxes and requiring it to provide him with an appeal process. Id. 

 The complaint also states that plaintiff did not file this action under his real name because 

he fears revenge from the IRS. Id. at 2. Defendant now moves for a more definite statement 

pursuant to Rule 12(e), requesting that the court order plaintiff to file an amended complaint 

using his actual name instead of the pseudonym, “Ram Heram.” ECF No. 16. 

II. Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement 

 A. Legal Standards 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more definite 

statement of a pleading where it “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably 

prepare a response.” “Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor, and are 

rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 

The proper test for evaluating a motion under Rule 12(e) is “whether the complaint provides the 

defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his responsive pleadings.” Id. “A motion for a more 

definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) attacks the unintelligibility of the complaint, 

not simply the mere lack of detail, and is only proper when a party is unable to determine how to 

frame a response to the issues raised by the complaint.” Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 

1159, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2005). “Where the complaint is specific enough to [apprise] the 

responding party of the substance of the claim being asserted or where the detail sought is 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

otherwise obtainable through discovery, a motion for a more definite statement should be 

denied.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

As they relate to identification of parties in a complaint, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure require the caption to include the names of all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). There 

is a presumption that litigants will use their real names. Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice 

Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). There are limited exceptions. 

“[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 

anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced 

Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2000). A party may be allowed to use a pseudonym 

when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary to protect the party from harassment, 

injury, ridicule or embarrassment. Id. at 1067-68. However, a party will only be permitted to 

retain his or her anonymity when “the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the 

opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. 

 When a party seeks to proceed anonymously because of fear of retaliation, a court must 

consider five factors: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the 

anonymous party’s fears, (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation, (4) the 

prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest.” Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 

1041 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 B. Discussion 

 Defendant argues that plaintiff should have to proceed under his real name because he has 

failed to show that his need for anonymity outweighs the public interest or the prejudice the 

government will suffer should he be allowed to proceed anonymously. ECF No. 16-1 at 2. The 

court finds that the Kamehameha School factors weigh in the governments favor and therefore 

plaintiff must proceed in this action under his actual name. 

 1. The Severity of the Threatened Harm/Reasonableness of the Party’s Fears 

 The first two factors, the severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of the 

anonymous party’s fears, “are intricately related and should be addressed together.” 

Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1043. Here, plaintiff asserts that he is afraid of revenge by the 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 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 

4

IRS. ECF No. 1 at 2. In his opposition to the motion, he claims that defendant has “created 

crimes, criminals and fear for plaintiff’s life; . . . coerced plaintiff in an attempt to admit to pay 

taxes which were not legally required to pay;” manufactured evidence, failed to provide plaintiff 

an opportunity to litigate tax matters; and “defrauded the courts for the facts.” ECF No. 22 at 1. 

Plaintiff also states that “defendant informed the world through the media that defendant knows 

plaintiff very well,” and that plaintiff has informed defendant of his identity on at least 100 

occasions. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he has lost property, faced crimes and criminals, and 

lived under the fear of losing his life. Id. at 2. He also contends that “[i]n 2013, [at] the direction 

of defendant, others took the control of the property from plaintiff; and caused fire, Killing, 

damages and injuries [acting as a “KILLING MACHINE”].” Id.

Plaintiff’s proffered explanations for his fears giving rise to his need to sue anonymously 

or through a fictitious name are largely unintelligible. Where the allegations are comprehensible 

on their face, they appear delusional. While plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that the IRS 

will retaliate against him, it is not entirely clear exactly what plaintiff believes the government 

will do to him and what factual basis supports such apprehensions. 

Plaintiff has not shown a severe threat of harm, nor has he shown that fear of retaliation is 

reasonable. Accordingly, these factors weigh in the government’s favor. 

Furthermore, and most importantly, plaintiff asserts that the government does, or at the 

very least should, already know his identity. He claims that he has previously informed defendant 

“at least 100 times” of his identity. Id. at 2. Given his assertion that the government already 

knows his identity, there is no basis for his claim that he must proceed with this action under a 

fictitious name to prevent retaliation. 

 2. Vulnerability to Retaliation 

 The next factor, vulnerability to retaliation, also weighs in the government’s favor. 

Plaintiff has not shown that he is particularly vulnerable to retaliation. Indeed, as explained 

above, plaintiff has failed to identify any reasonable threat. Accordingly, this factor favors 

plaintiff proceeding under his actual name. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 4 of 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 

5

 3. Prejudice to the Government 

 The government may also suffer prejudice if plaintiff is not required to proceed under his 

actual name. The government believes, although it is not certain, that it knows plaintiff’s identity. 

ECF No. 16-1 at 3. However, it requests that plaintiff be required to use his real name to avoid 

potential restrictions on sharing taxpayer information in the event it is incorrect about plaintiff’s 

identify. 

 The crux of plaintiff’s complaint is that the government wrongfully imposed arbitrary 

taxes for various tax years. ECF No. 1. The government cannot respond to such claims without 

knowing his plaintiff’s identity. Accordingly, this factor weighs against plaintiff proceeding 

under a fictitious name. 

 4. Public Interest 

 The final factor to be considered is the public’s interest. “The normal presumption in 

litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1042. 

“This presumption is loosely related to the public’s right to open courts and the right of private 

individuals to confront their accusers.” Id. Plaintiff has not shown that the public lacks an 

interest in knowing his identity. Nor has he provided any basis for rebutting the general 

presumption that he should have to use his real name. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in the 

governments favor. 

 Since all factors weigh in the government’s favor, defendant’s motion for more definite 

statement is granted and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that contains his actual name.3

III. Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay and Motion for Sanctions 

 Plaintiff has filed various motions, including an “URGENT REQUEST FOR A STAY 

FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.” ECF No. 27. He requests in this document that the 

enforcement of undisclosed liens be stayed during the course of this action. Id. Plaintiff, 

however, failed to notice this motion for hearing as required by Local Rule 230. Therefore, the 

 3

 The Ninth Circuit has held that a motion to proceed anonymously is a nondispositive 

matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1041; see 

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 5 of 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 

6

court issued a minute order directing plaintiff to contact the courtroom deputy clerk to obtain 

available civil law and motion hearing dates. However, plaintiff failed to do so. 

 On March 28, 2014, plaintiff filed another motion to stay the enforcement of liens. ECF 

No. 31. In this pleading, plaintiff also requested that sanctions be imposed against defendant for 

failure to provide discovery. Id. at 2. Plaintiff again failed to notice his motions for hearing as 

required by this court’s local rules. Accordingly, the court issued another minute order directing 

plaintiff to contact court staff to obtain an available hearing date for his motions. 

 As of the date of this order, none of these motions have been noticed for hearing as 

required by Local Rule 230. Further, it does not appear from the face of either motion that a stay 

or sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, plaintiff’s two motions to stay and motion for sanctions 

are denied without prejudice. Should plaintiff renew these motions, plaintiff is admonished that 

he must notice them for hearing in accordance with Local Rule 230 and set forth the specific 

ground upon which any such relief is warranted. 

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

 Plaintiff’s motion for a stay and motion for sanctions includes a request that the court 

appoint counsel for him. ECF No. 31. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th 

Cir.1990); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1988). In considering whether 

exceptional circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success 

on the merits; and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude 

that plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s 

ability to articulate his claims amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of 

counsel at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 6 of 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 

7

V. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, ECF No. 16, is granted. 

2. Within 14 days of this order plaintiff shall file an amended complaint bearing plaintiff’s 

real name, as provided herein. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

3. Plaintiff’s motions to stay and motion for sanctions, ECF Nos. 27 and 31, are denied 

without prejudice. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 31, is denied. 

DATED: July 31, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00780-TLN-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 7 of 7