Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00129/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7609 IRS: Petition to Quash IRS Summons

---

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

ALDON LOUIS BOLANOS, and

MARY E. BOLANOS,

Petitioners,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-MC-00129-GEB-CKD

ORDER

Pending are the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations, (F.&R., ECF No. 2.) filed August 17, 2016,

concerning the failure of Petitioner Aldon Louis Balaños 

(“Aldon”) to timely serve the Petition to Quash the IRS summons 

issued by Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to a bank 

regarding a subpoena/summons for documents to which a response 

was sought no later than the 16th day of October 2015. Alton 

signed the Petition as follows: “Aldon L. Bolanos, Esq. 

Petitioner In Pro Per,” (Petition 4:11-13, ECF No. 1). The 

Findings and Recommendations do not address Petitioner Mary E. 

Bolanos named in the caption of the Petition, whom Aldon avers in 

his Declaration attached to the Petition is his wife; and he 

indicates in has declaration that he has authority to represent 

his wife in his pro per status. (Declaration 1:21-23, ECF No. 1-

1.) However, it is well established that appearing in propria 

Case 2:15-mc-00129-GEB-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 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

27

28

2

persona is a personal privilege, and a pro per litigant may not 

represent his spouse in that litigation status. See, e.g., 

Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 402 (7th Cir. 2010) 

(stating “Swanson also named her husband . . . as a co-plaintiff 

and a co-appellant but since Swanson is proceeding pro se, she 

may not represent her husband[; w]e have therefore dismissed [her 

husband] as a party on appeal[, and] proceed solely with respect 

to Swanson’s part of the case.”); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. 

United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a 

non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, 

that privilege is personal to him.” (citations omitted)). 

Therefore, since Aldon asserts he is a pro per litigant, he 

lacked the authority to include his wife in this action, and Mary 

E. Bolanos’s name in the caption is stricken from the Petition. 

The Magistrate Judge found in the Findings and 

Recommendations, “[t]here is no evidence in the record . . . that 

petitioner [Aldon] has properly and timely served [Respondent]” 

with a summons” and that “Petitioner has taken no steps to 

prosecute this action.” (F.&R. 1:19-25, 2:2.) These Findings and 

Recommendations issued on August 17, 2016, and provided Alton 

fourteen days after service to file written objections with the 

court. To date, Aldon has neither filed objections, nor a request 

for extension of time to do so. Notwithstanding Alton’s failure 

to object, the undersigned judge has made a de novo review of the

failure to prosecute findings and adopts them. 

A district court has an inherent power sua sponte to 

dismiss an action for lack of prosecution. The Ninth Circuit 

“require[s] the district court to weigh five factors to determine 

Case 2:15-mc-00129-GEB-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 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

27

28

3

whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution: (1) the 

public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 

the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition 

of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th 

Cir.1994). The first and second factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. It is unclear whether the third and fourth factors 

weigh against dismissal and it is assumed that these factors do 

not favor dismissal, but they have not been shown to predominate 

over the first and second factors. The last factor does not 

weigh against dismissal because Aldon was warned by the 

Magistrate Judge that dismissal was recommended for failure to 

prosecute and yet he has not communicated with the court. Hence, 

less drastic action is not favored in light of Aldon’s apparent 

abandonment of this action. 

Therefore, this action is dismissed.

Dated: September 9, 2016

Case 2:15-mc-00129-GEB-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3