Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00624-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. MACKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

APPEALS OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. No. 2)

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF 

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Doc. No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David E. Mackey (“Plaintiff”), a detainee at Coalinga State Hospital proceeding 

pro se, initiated this civil action on April 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 1). The matter was transferred to 

this Court on May 1, 2020. (Doc. No. 4). Concurrent with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the 

United States Code section 1915(a). Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915(a), 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 8
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

and accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 

dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 

true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 

is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff, a civil detainee, brings this civil rights action for return of his federal tax refund. 

He names the following defendants: (1) Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 

Appeals Office; (2) Vanessa R. Barr; and (3) Melissa L. Sander, Appeals Team Manager. 

In his sole claim for relief, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Barr violated his “constitutional 

federal civil rights” and alleges as follows:

I, Mr:David E. Mackey, did file a appeal, with the Office of Appeals, which is an 

independent organization within the (IRS) they had disallowed my claim on Check 

No. 403848539822- 201822889100; Tax Periods: Dec. 31, 2017. The (IRS) issued 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 8
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

a check for ($861.77) on August 24th, 2018. On Tuesday August 28th, 2018, I 

signed the back of my refund check .... I inadvertently mailed the check back to 

the Department of the Treasury, and never did cash the check. You say that your 

records show that I had filed my claim late. And I didn’t receive this letter in reply 

refer to: 1181502400 [until] Dec. Dec. 19, 2018 LTR 129C 0 ... 201712 30 

00000667 BODC-WI from the (IRS) Department of the Treasury (IRS) Atlanta GA 

39901-0001; Enclosures: Copy of the letter envelope and form (3911) by 

Jacqueline D. Francois Operation (2) Manager If I did file my claim late, it was 

because of the government shut down and waiting for the (IRS) to re-open: 

(Doc. No. 1 at 4.) 1 Plaintiff further alleges that he was given the refund check in the amount of 

$861.77 by Defendants Barr and Sanders. He asserts that he should receive more interest for his 

pain and suffering. (Id.) As noted above, he is requesting that his refund check be returned and 

deposited into his savings account. (Id. at 7.) 

According to the allegations and the documents attached to the complaint, the Department 

of Treasury issued Plaintiff a tax refund check for $861.77 on August 24, 2028. (Doc. No. 1 at 

20.) Plaintiff allegedly received the check, endorsed it and inadvertently returned it to the 

Department of Treasury on August 28, 2018. (Id. at 4.) On September 8, 2018, Plaintiff 

submitted an inquiry regarding the return of his refund. (Id. at 15.) The Department of Treasury 

responded on December 19, 2018, indicating that Plaintiff had been issued a check on August 24, 

2018. (Id. at 20.) 

On September 4, 2019, the Department of Treasury disallowed Plaintiff’s claim for a 

refund based on information that the form(s) W-2, wage and tax statement attached to his return 

misrepresented his correct income and/or federal tax withheld. (Doc. No. 1 at 25.) Plaintiff 

1 Plaintiff’s complaint contains personal data identifiers, such as financial account numbers, 

Social Security numbers and dates of birth, that should be omitted or, where reference is 

necessary, partially redacted from all pleadings, documents and exhibits filed with Court. See 

Local Rule 140(a). In the event Plaintiff files additional documents, then he must partially redact 

all personal data identifiers from the pleading and in any exhibits. For financial account numbers, 

identify the name or type of account and the financial institution where maintained, but use only 

the last four numbers of the account number. Local Rule 140(a)(ii). For Social Security 

numbers, use only the last four numbers. Local Rule 140(a)(iii). For dates of birth, use only the

year. Local Rule 140(a)(iv). 

Plaintiff is advised that neither the Clerk nor the Court will review filed documents for 

compliance, nor will the Court as a matter of course seal on its own motion documents containing 

personal data identifiers or redact documents. Local Rule 140(e). 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 8
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

appealed the decision on September 10, 2019. (Id. at 10-14.) Subsequently, on March 18, 2020, 

the Department of Treasury disallowed Plaintiff’s claim and informed him of his right to bring 

suit in the United States District Court. (Id. at 33.) 

IV. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 

1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims against the 

Department of Treasury and the individual federal employees. In particular, the nature of Plaintiff’s 

claims against the entity defendant and its employees is unclear. If Plaintiff elects to amend his 

complaint, he must include factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim relief. 

B. Civil Rights Action Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff purports to bring his claim for a tax refund as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Section 1983 provides: 

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that defendants acted 

under color of state law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the defendants 

deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of 

the United States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986).

Plaintiff names the United States Department of Treasury and federal employees. He has 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 8
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

not alleged that any of the federal defendants was acting under color of state law. Further, section 

1983 provides no claim against federal officers acting under color of federal law. Billings v. United 

States, 57 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir.1995). 

C. Civil Rights Action Against Federal Employees and Federal Agencies

To the extent Plaintiff purports to bring a claim against the IRS (Department of Treasury)

and federal employees for an alleged violation of his rights under the federal Constitution, he may 

not do so. In appropriate cases, actions against federal officials may be cognizable under Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Federal Agent of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, (1971). See 

Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). However, Bivens claims are unavailable 

against IRS auditors and officials in their individual capacities “[b]ecause the Internal Revenue 

Code gives taxpayers meaningful protections against government transgressions in tax assessment 

and collection.” Id. at 1186. Bivens claims are also unavailable against the United States, federal 

agencies, or federal employees in their official capacities. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86

(1994); Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 538 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2008) (no Bivenslike cause of action available against federal agencies or federal agents sued in their official 

capacities); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (suit against IRS employee 

for actions taken in his/her official capacity is suit against United States).

D. Claim for Tax Refund

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), a district court has jurisdiction over civil actions “for the 

recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or 

collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to 

have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.” A 

taxpayer’s right to bring a refund suit, however, is limited by 26 U.S.C. 7422(a). See Dutch v. 

Internal Revenue Dep’t of Treasury, No. SACV 12-02098-CJC, 2013 WL 7162138, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). Section 7422(a) provides:

(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund.—No suit or proceeding shall be 

maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have 

been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to 

have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive 

or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 8
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

duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and 

the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.

A refund claim is a prerequisite to jurisdiction; a United States District Court does not have 

jurisdiction over a tax refund suit unless the taxpayer has not only paid all assessments in full, but 

also has filed a claim for a refund with the IRS. Thomas v. United States, 755 F.2d 728, 729 (9th 

Cir.1985); Yuen v. United States, 825 F.2d 244, 245 (9th Cir.1987).

Here, the allegations in the complaint and the documents attached to the complaint 

support an inference that Plaintiff filed a refund claim after mistakenly returning his refund check, 

that his claim was disallowed, and that he had two years to sue after denial of that claim on March 

18, 2020. Accordingly, it appears that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim with respect to his 

tax refund. 

However, in a suit for a tax refund under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), the proper defendant is the 

United States, not the IRS or a governmental employee or officer. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(1); Mays 

v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:19-cv-0344 AWI SAB, 2019 WL 6170784, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 

20, 2019). Section 7422(f)(2) provides in relevant part:

If a suit or proceeding brought in a United States district court against an officer or 

employee of the United States (or former officer or employee) or his personal 

representative is improperly brought solely by virtue of paragraph (1), the court 

shall order, upon such terms as are just, that the pleadings be amended to substitute 

the United States as a party for such officer or employee as of the time such action 

commenced, upon proper service of process on the United States.

Because the statute directs the Court to order amendment of the pleadings to effectuate 

substitution of the correct party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim 

against the United States. Reyes v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 1:09-cv-00319-LJO-SMS, 2009 WL 

981604, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009), as amended (Apr. 14, 2009), report and recommendation 

adopted, No. 1:09-cv-00319-LJO-SMS, 2009 WL 1798150 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2009) (finding 

plaintiff stated cognizable tax refund claim against United States on screening and ordering 

amendment of complaint to substitute United States as proper defendant). 

As discussed below, if Plaintiff elects to proceed only on this claim, then the Court will 

recommend that the complaint be deemed amended to reflect substitution of the Unites States as 

the Defendant in this action upon proper service of process on the United States. If, instead, 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 6 of 8
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

Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, then Plaintiff is advised that he must name the 

proper defendant. 

V. Conclusion and Order

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim 

against the United States, but he does not state any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff will be 

granted leave to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies to the extent he is able to 

do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and he is agreeable to proceeding 

only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court, then he may file a notice informing the 

Court that he does not intend to amend, and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim. 

The Court will then recommend that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this 

action, and then initiate the process for service of the complaint. 

If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, any such amended complaint should be 

brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the 

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Court in this order; or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a first amended 

complaint and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim against 

the United States related to his tax refund; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend dismissal of 

this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00624-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 8 of 8