Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01856-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

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

ALFRED EUGENE SHALLOWHORN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES (IRS), et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-1856-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOCS. 2, 4)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK,

PLAINTIFF, AND THE MARSHAL TO

TAKE SPECIFIED STEPS TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se with

an action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

On December 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis which was incomplete.

On December 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed another application to

proceed in forma pauperis Plaintiff has submitted a declaration

that makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the

request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 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

 The filing fee for civil actions is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1

1914, as amended effective April 8, 2006. Pub. L. 109-171, 120

Stat. 4, February 8, 2006.

2

§ 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to

pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. No 1

initial partial filing will be assessed by this order. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the

appropriate agency to collect monthly payments of twenty percent

of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s prison

trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the

appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount

in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is

paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Screening the Complaint and Directing Service 

A. Legal Standards

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 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

3

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 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

4

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

B. The Complaint

Plaintiff sues the United States Department of Internal

Revenue Service for tax refunds from the years 2003 through 2006. 

 Reading the complaint fairly and liberally, and indulging

all inferences in favor of Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges that he

filed for a tax refund for 2003, the IRS said the refund had been

put into the bank account of another without Plaintiff’s consent,

and the IRS has failed to identify the account holder who

received the refund. (Cmplt. p. 1.)

With respect to 2004, Plaintiff alleges that he filed for a

refund, the IRS denied the refund based either on the status of

Plaintiff’s employment and/or the record upon which the IRS

calculated Plaintiff’s entitlement to a refund. (Id. pp. 2-3.)

With respect to 2005, Plaintiff alleges that he wrote the

IRS in 2007 and asked for more of a refund than he received, but

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 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

5

his request was denied. (Id. p. 3.)

With respect to 2006, Plaintiff claims that the IRS

disallowed it because it claimed that Plaintiff misrepresented

his income in that year.

It is established that a federal district court may exercise

jurisdiction over a claim for the recovery of erroneously

collected tax pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346 only if three

prerequisites are met. Plaintiff must have 1) paid the tax in

full before filing suit, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145,

177 (1957); 2) filed an administrative claim for refund with the

IRS, 28 U.S.C. § 7422(a), Bear Valley Mutual Water Co. v.

Riddell, 493 F.2d 948, 951 (9 Cir. 1974); and 3) waited six th

months or until the IRS denies their claim, whichever is earlier,

before filing a refund action in a district court, 26 U.S.C. §

6532(a)(1).

Here, it may fairly be inferred that Plaintiff paid the

taxes in question, filed administrative claims for refund with

the IRS, and waited until the IRS denied his claims before filing

suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff states a claim against the Defendant

United States Department of Internal Revenue Service, and service

should be ordered.

III. Disposition

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED, and

2. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

Defendant United States Department of Internal Revenue

Service;

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 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

6

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285

form, one summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents

form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint

filed December 20, 2007.

4. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order,

Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of

Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice

to the Court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant

listed above; and 

c. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed

December 20, 2007. 

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and

need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the

above-described documents, the Clerk SHALL FORWARD the

appropriate documents to the United States Marshal.

6. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the

Marshal SHALL SERVE the above-named Defendant pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of

costs. 

7. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will

result in a Recommendation that this action be

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 6 of 6