Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-mc-00331/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-mc-00331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 999
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANICKA GARN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

LaVONNE TOBIA, Revenue Officer,

Internal Revenue Service, et al.

Respondents.

Misc. S-04-0331 LKK PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

—NFN—

On October 18, 2004, Anicka Garn, proceeding in pro se,

petitioned this court to quash an Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”) summons issued September 21, 2004, by LaVonne Tobia, 

Internal Revenue Service officer, upon Citizens Bank in Boston.

The challenged summons sought the October 21 production of

financial records of petitioner and her mother, Marcia Doerr.

Petitioner failed to appear at two hearings scheduled by

the court for November 10, and November 24, 2004, respectively. 

Case 2:04-mc-00331-LKK -PAN Document 21 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 24, the court directed petitioner to show cause in

writing by December 16, and in person on January 5, 2005, why

sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Also pending on January 5, was the government’s motion to dismiss

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On December 16, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her

petition as moot. At the hearing on January 5, petitioner was

unable to answer the court’s questions concerning the contents of

her petition and informed the court the petition had been

prepared by her mother, Marcia Doerr. The court deferred ruling

on the parties’ respective motions to dismiss and directed

petitioner to cooperate with the U.S. Marshal in an effort to

locate Doerr. The Marshal has since informed the court of

petitioner’s cooperation. 

Accordingly, I hereby recommend plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), without

imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. The government’s motion to

dismiss should be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

Case 2:04-mc-00331-LKK -PAN Document 21 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 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

3

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 18, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-mc-00331-LKK -PAN Document 21 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3