Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01758/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01758-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

- 1 -

18cv1758

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENDRICK BANGS KELLOGG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JULIE WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE

This action is but one of many that Plaintiff Kendrick Bangs Kellogg has filed 

concerning a dispute with the Government regarding taxes and a levy upon his Social 

Security benefits. Previously, the Court dismissed several of Kellogg’s lawsuits and 

warned him that he could not evade the Court’s dismissal orders by simply filing another 

lawsuit. Kellogg has violated these orders by filing yet another lawsuit that seeks the same 

relief. Consequently, the Court finds his duplicative Complaint is subject to summary 

dismissal. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Kellogg v. Rossotti, 03-cv-0055-BTM-LSP (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 9, 2003)

In late 2002, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Special Agent Julie Wilson 

investigated Kellogg to determine his income tax liability and whether he had violated any 

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
- 2 -

18cv1758

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

provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. (Case No. 03-cv-0055, ECF No. 38.) As part of 

her investigation, Special Agent Wilson issued seventeen summonses to third parties 

seeking financial information regarding Kellogg. (Id.) In early 2003, Kellogg moved in 

this District to quash the administrative summonses. (Id., ECF No. 1.) After holding a 

hearing, District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz determined that the IRS established a prima 

facie case for enforcement of the subpoenas, and that Kellogg did not meet his “heavy 

burden” to disprove the IRS’s showing. (Id.) In doing so, Judge Moskowitz rejected

Kellogg’s arguments that the IRS was conducting an illegitimate investigation in bad faith

and illegally harassing Kellogg. (Id. (“There is no evidence that the IRS is doing anything 

but carrying out a legitimate investigation regarding Kellogg’s income tax liability.”).) 

Hence, Judge Moskowitz granted the Government’s motion to summarily enforce the 

summonses and denied Kellogg’s petition to quash in its entirety. (Id.)

B. Kellogg v. Olsen, 16-cv-0640-BAS-KLB (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 15, 2016)

Over a decade later, Kellogg filed an action against the Commissioner of the IRS 

and various IRS personnel. (Case No. 16-cv-0640, ECF No. 1.) The Court permitted him 

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)—without paying the filing fee. (Id., ECF No. 4.) 

Very liberally construed, Kellogg’s pleadings sought a refund of Social Security benefits 

that the IRS allegedly levied upon between March 2002 and November 2008—

approximately eight years before the action was filed. (Id., ECF No. 13.) The Government 

moved to dismiss, arguing Kellogg’s pleadings were unintelligible and inscrutable. (Id., 

ECF No. 39-1.) The Government also argued, among other things, that the statute of 

limitations for Kellogg’s action had run. (Id.) After Kellogg failed to oppose the 

Government’s motion to dismiss, the Court deemed his failure as consent to granting it and 

dismissed without prejudice Kellogg’s action. (Id., ECF No. 44.)

C. Kellogg v. Wilson, 17-cv-0353-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 22, 2017)

Approximately six month later, Kellogg filed another action, naming Special Agent 

Wilson and various other government officials as defendants. (Case No. 17-cv-0353, ECF 

No. 1.) The Court again granted Kellogg permission to proceed IFP, but dismissed his 

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
- 3 -

18cv1758

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

eighty-two page complaint for failure to state a claim. (Id., ECF No. 6.) The Court noted 

that Kellogg’s pleading was “even more difficult to decipher than the complaints filed in 

the last case.” (Id.) To the extent that Kellogg was again seeking to litigate the wrongful 

assessment of taxes and a levy upon his Social Security benefits, the Court reasoned those 

claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (Id.) The Court 

also addressed Kellogg’s other allegations:

Plaintiff also adds allegations about “damages for the School,” remodeling of 

a home, and “time wasted for the construction of the School”—as well as 

various other conspiracies, theories of bugging, and entrapment. The Court is 

simply unable to decipher the grounds of Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, to the 

extent Plaintiff is alleging additional claims that were not alleged in the first 

case, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted.

(Id. (citations omitted).) Accordingly, the Court dismissed Kellogg’s complaint without 

prejudice. (Id.) 

Kellogg filed an amended pleading. (Case No. 17-cv-0353, ECF No. 8.) Upon 

screening the amended complaint, the Court dismissed it as frivolous. (Id., ECF No. 17.) 

The Court reasoned Kellogg’s allegations regarding various government conspiracies and 

his state court divorce proceedings in the early 1990s were clearly baseless. (Id.) The 

Court also found that the remainder of Kellogg’s pleading that “merely repeat[ed] pending 

or previously litigated claims” was subject to dismissal as frivolous. (Id.) Hence, the Court 

dismissed Kellogg’s action with prejudice. (Id.) 

D. Kellogg v. Wilson, 17-cv-1505-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. filed July 25, 2017)

Kellogg filed yet another action against Special Agent Wilson and various other 

government officials. (No. 17-cv-1505, ECF No. 1.) This time, however, Kellogg paid 

the filing fee. (Id.) After Kellogg filed several pleadings, the Court dismissed his fourth 

amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Id., ECF 

No. 14. (noting that “Plaintiff’s complaint is over ninety pages, including thirty-four single 

spaced pages of conclusory or confusing allegations starting in the early 1990’s and almost 

sixty pages of exhibits”).) Nevertheless, the Court granted Kellogg leave to file a fifth 

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

18cv1758

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

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies the Court identified. (Id.) The Court 

cautioned that Kellogg “must succinctly specify who did what, when the events occurred, 

and how Plaintiff was harmed by the alleged wrongful conduct.” (Id.)

Kellogg filed a fifth amended complaint, and he also sought to file a sixth amended 

complaint shortly thereafter. (No. 17-cv-1505, ECF Nos. 16, 18.) The Court noted that 

like his prior pleadings, the fifth amended complaint was “seventy-five pages in length, 

containing twenty-four pages of single-spaced conclusory or confusing allegations starting 

in the early 1990’s with over fifty pages of exhibits. (Id., ECF No. 19.) Consequently, the 

Court concluded Kellogg again failed to comply with Rule 8’s requirements. (Id.) The 

Court also dismissed Kellogg’s action with prejudice, recognizing that “even though 

dismissing a complaint without leave to amend is a harsh remedy, the remedy [was]

appropriate . . . where the Court ha[d] given Kellogg multiple opportunities and sufficient 

time to bring a cognizable claim.” (Id.) Kellogg then repeatedly attempted to file another 

amended complaint, but the Court rejected his filings. (Id., ECF Nos. 21–31.)

E. Kellogg v. Wilson, 18-cv-1216-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. filed June 11, 2018)

Around the same time, Kellogg once again filed an action seeking the same relief

and paid the filing fee. (No. 18-cv-1216, ECF No. 1.) In dismissing this duplicative 

action, the Court explained:

[T]he Court’s prior Order in Wilson, No. 17-cv-1505, ECF No. 19, raises a 

barrier to Kellogg’s complaint in this case. That Order prohibited Kellogg 

from filing any additional amended complaints. Yet, Kellogg appears to 

believe that he may circumvent that prohibition by obtaining a new case 

number. He may not do so. Rule 41(b) permits a court to sua sponte dismiss 

a case for failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Stone v. 

City of Tucson, 249 F.R.D. 326, 327 (D. Ariz. 2008). By seeking to file the 

very amended complaint he was prohibited from filing in this Court’s Wilson 

Order, No. 17-cv-1505, Kellogg fails to comply with the terms of that Order 

as well as the successive nine orders in which the Court rejected Kellogg’s 

attempts to file amended complaints. The Court concludes that Kellogg’s 

complaint in this case is subject to sua sponte dismissal on this basis.

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

18cv1758

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

(No. 18-cv-1216, ECF No. 7.) The Court also determined that dismissal was appropriate 

based on Rule 8. (Id.) Therefore, the Court dismissed Kellogg’s action and advised him 

that he “may not circumvent this order by requesting a new case number.” (Id. (emphasis 

omitted).) Finally, the Court further “advise[d] Plaintiff that any complaints he files which 

are substantively identical to the complaints which have been dismissed in either this case 

or Wilson, No. 17-cv-1505, will be subject to summary dismissal.” (Id.)

F. This Case

Shortly after the Court dismissed his prior case, Kellogg filed this action. (Compl., 

ECF No. 1.) He once again names Special Agent Wilson—the agent who investigated 

Kellogg and issued the administrative summonses discussed above—as a defendant. (Id.

¶ 2.) Kellogg also sues various other IRS and justice department personnel. (Id. ¶¶ 3–8.) 

Liberally construed, Kellogg’s pleading raises the same claims that are described above: 

he argues government agents and his ex-wife conspired concerning his divorce proceedings 

in the 1990s. (Id. ¶¶ 10–20.) He also again makes various allegations concerning a tax 

court proceeding and an IRS appeal from the 1990s. (Id. ¶¶ 27–33.) And Kellogg once 

again appears to be seeking the return of Social Security benefits that have been taken. (Id.

¶¶ 34–60.) Finally, Kellogg makes allegations regarding a non-profit school and certain 

tractors, which the Court also has previously dismissed. (Id. ¶¶ 62–70.) 

II. ANALYSIS

Having reviewed Kellogg’s pleading, the Court is satisfied that the pleading is 

substantively identical to the numerous prior complaints rejected by the Court. The Court 

has repeatedly warned Kellogg that he cannot evade this Court’s dismissal orders by simply 

filing a new lawsuit that raises the same allegations. Nevertheless, Kellogg has again 

violated the Court’s orders by filing yet another action that seeks the same relief. 

Consequently, like before, the Court finds that summarily dismissing this action for failure 

to comply with the Court’s orders is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Stone v. City of 

Tucson, 249 F.R.D. 326, 327 (D. Ariz. 2008). This outcome “is a harsh penalty,” but these 

are “extreme circumstances.” See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

18cv1758

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

1986). Kellogg has repeatedly attempted to litigate claims that have been dismissed with 

prejudice. In addition, given the history of Kellogg’s cases from the last few years, a less 

drastic remedy is not available. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this duplicative action 

with prejudice. 

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Kellogg’s 

Complaint (ECF No. 1). The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 10, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-01758-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6