Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00120-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

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

GEORGE A. PRATHAFTAKIS, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

LINDA E. STIFF, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:08cv0120 AWI DLB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed the instant action on January 24, 2008. Other than the

fact Plaintiff is very upset with actions that have occurred in an action pending in the Tax Court,

the exact basis of Plaintiff’s action is not entirely clear.

On January 29, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the action be dismissed without leave to amend. The Magistrate Judge found that to the extent

the extent that Plaintiff is challenging the actual tax assessed this court is without jurisdiction to

hear such a challenge. The Magistrate Judge found that to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to

change the venue of an action in the Tax Court to this court, the court will not interfere with an

action pending in another court. Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that because the

generalized allegations appear to be related to the pending proceedings, Plaintiff was asking this

court to interfere with another court. The Findings and Recommendation was served on

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. 

On February 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed objections . 

Case 1:08-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 02/11/08 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s

objections, the court finds that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and

proper analysis. This action cannot proceed to the extent that Plaintiff is challenging a tax

assessments or challenging the pending tax court proceeding. However, in the objections,

Plaintiff states that this action is not challenging a tax assessment. Rather, Plaintiff states that

he is suing Defendants because they committed torts and violated Plaintiff’s civil rights. 

Plaintiff further states that Defendants are in violation of RICO. The Findings and

Recommendations do not discuss the viability of claims based in tort, civil rights violations, or

RICO violations. Thus, while the court agrees the complaint violates Rule 8, the court believes

Plaintiff should be given one opportunity to amend the complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122(9 Cir. 2000) (if court determines that complaint fails to state claim, leave to amend th

may be granted to extent that complaint’s deficiencies can be cured).

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to sue IRS agents for civil rights violations, such a

claim must be brought under Bivens v. Six. Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Burea of

Narcotics. Lawsuits against federal officials for constitutional deprivations that occur under

color of federal law are actionable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). While this doctrine provides for private

rights of action for violations of the Fourth Amendment, Bivens, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Fifth

Amendment Due Process clause, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), and the Eighth

Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court has been loath to

extend Bivens to claims where Congress has already provided "an avenue for some redress."

Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68-69 (2001); Libas Ltd v. Carrillo,

329 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9 Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has found that taxpayers have no right th

to Bivens relief for any allegedly unconstitutional actions of IRS officials engaged in tax

assessment and collection. Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9 Cir. 2004). In reaching th

this holding, the Ninth Circuit found that because the complex statutory scheme of the Internal

Case 1:08-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 02/11/08 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

3

Revenue Code included a comprehensive remedial scheme, Congress considered any wrongs

could be addressed in the Code's administration. Id. at 1185-86.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue IRS agents for tort violations, the Federal Tort Claims

Act (“FTCA”) provides the exclusive remedy for “injury or loss of property, or personal injury or

death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act of omission of any employee of the

Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §

2679(b)(1). The FTCA bars claimants from seeking damages against the United States in

federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a);

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517,

518-19 (9 Cir.1992). Thus, any amended complaint based in tort must show that Plaintiff has th

exhausted is administrative remedies.

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to sue Defendants for violations of RICO, Plaintiff

must sue for civil damages as provided for by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). To state a civil RICO claim,

a plaintiff must allege “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering

activity (5) causing injury to plaintiffs’ ‘business or property.’” Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817,

825 (9 Cir. 2001) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)). Thus, any amended complaint must allege all th

elements or RICO.

Finally, the court notes that it appears that many, if not all, of Plaintiff’s claims against

the various Defendants involve their actions in the pending tax court. Plaintiff is advised that

errors committed in an action pending in another court should generally be addressed by way of

appeal of that action. Plaintiff is also advised that absent very narrow exceptions officials

involved in a Tax Court matter are immune from suit for any alleged violations that occur within

the Tax Court proceedings themselves. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (judges and

clerks); Fry v. Melarango, 939 F.2d 832, 836-837 (9 Cir. 1991) (attorneys). th

Although the court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised

that any amended complaint must be based upon a well-founded belief that a cognizable or

arguable legal theory exists that would support such a theory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (allowing

sanctions to be awarded when litigant asserts frivolous legal theory); Les Shockley Racing Inc. v.

Case 1:08-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 02/11/08 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

4

National Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 F. 2d 504, 510 (9 Cir. 1989) (defining legal argument as frivolous th

if “at time of filing, a competent attorney after a reasonable investigation could not have

determined that a well-founded basis in fact and in law or a good faith argument for extension of

law supported the filing”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 29, 2008, is ADOPTED;

2. The action is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff SHALL file any amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s

date of service;

4. Plaintiff is ADVISED that failure to file an amended complaint or failure to file a

complaint that follows the legal standards set forth in this order will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00120-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 02/11/08 Page 4 of 4