Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01847/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01847-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRELL F. TAYLOR, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:11cv01847 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND TO DISMISS THE ACTION

[SEALED]

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant qui tam action pursuant to

the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq, along with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.

I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The Court recommends that the application be denied because, as discussed below, the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the action should be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

As a result, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is MOOT.

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

1

Case 1:11-cv-01847-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/14/11 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

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). He is housed at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi,

California. Plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of himself, the Internal Revenue Service and

the United States of America against the people of the individual States, the canal zone, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands based on the False Claims Act. Plaintiff contends that on or

about April 1, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, “certain defendants

made a false claim” on their W2 Tax Form and 1040 Tax Form “by having claimed ‘Dependents’

that defendants were not entitled to claim on records they knowingly and willfully submitted and

reported to the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) and/or the United States of America.” 

Complaint, p. 4. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants used W4 Federal Tax Forms to cause

their employers to believe that certain dependents were eligible to be claimed as a lawful

dependent to decrease their tax obligation to the United States of America. Plaintiff believes that

“33% of the defendants since the year 2003 . . . have received a certain of money . . . via Income

Tax returns for dependents” that they had no legal right to claim. Plaintiff contends that

Defendants have “scammed the United States of America for an estimated $40,000,000,000.00 or

more . . . by falsely having claimed a dependent.” Complaint, p. 5. Plaintiff asserts that he is not

able to obtain some names of dependents used by defendants during their false reporting through

the Freedom of Information Act or through other entities. Plaintiff agrees to work in tandem

with the United States of America to cause defendants to accept an offer of compromise to

individually settle each false claim for $90.00, with $10.00 being retained by Plaintiff and $80.00

being remitted to the United States of America, from an estimated one hundred million

defendants. Complaint, p. 6. 

III. DISCUSSION

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing

jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ.

2

Case 1:11-cv-01847-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/14/11 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

P. 12(h)(3). A court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time

during the pendency of the action. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). 

2. The False Claims Act

Under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the court has jurisdiction over civil actions for

submissions of false claims to the federal government brought by private persons on behalf of the

person and for the United States Government. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1), (2) and 3730(b). To

state a claim under the FCA, a private person must allege the defendant submitted a claim to

receive money from the government or used a false statement or record to avoid paying money

owed to the government, that the claim or statement was false or fraudulent, and that the

defendant knew the claim was false or fraudulent. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). However, the

liability provisions of the FCA do “not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(d); cf. U.S. ex rel. Roberts v. Western Pac. R.

Co., 190 F.2d 243 (1951). 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false statements in their federal tax

returns. Such income tax returns plainly constitute claims, records or statements made under the

Internal Revenue Code. Thus, the tax bar provision in the FCA forecloses Plaintiff’s claims

against any defendants in this action and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

complaint. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Barber v. Paychex, Inc., 2010 WL 283633, *5-7 (S.D.Fla. Jul.

15, 2010) (court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims prohibited by tax bar of FCA). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED AS MOOT; and

2. This action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twentyone (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections

3

Case 1:11-cv-01847-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/14/11 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

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

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 14, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-01847-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 12/14/11 Page 4 of 4