Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01470/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01470-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability - Authorization to collect via civil 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORCELLA JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01583-EMC 

ORDER RE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Docket No. 16

Plaintiff Dorcella Jones initiated this lawsuit against various employees of the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”) in March 2018. In April 2018, Magistrate Judge Spero granted Ms. 

Jones’s in forma pauperis application, see Docket No. 7 (order), but recommended that her 

complaint be dismissed. See Docket No. 8 (report and recommendation). In his report, Judge 

Spero noted, inter alia, that “[i]t is not entirely clear whether [Ms.] Jones seeks a tax refund or 

merely a conference with the IRS”; he also questioned why “[Ms.] Jones believes her case is 

properly filed in this Court rather than in the Southern District of California where [she] appears to 

live.” Docket No. 8 (R&R at 3).

In May 2018, this Court adopted Judge Spero’s report and recommendation and thus 

dismissed her complaint but gave her leave to amend.

1

 See Docket No. 14 (order). Ms. Jones has 

now filed her amended complaint. Based on the Court’s review of the complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, it hereby rules as follows.

1. Ms. Jones’s complaint remains confusing and difficult to understand. However, it 

appears that she is bringing, at the very least, a claim for a tax refund. See, e.g., Docket No. 16, at 

 

1

The Court acknowledged that, after Judge Spero’s report issued, Ms. Jones filed a first amended 

complaint but found that it suffered from many of the same deficiencies identified by Judge Spero.

Case 3:18-cv-01470-GPC-NLS Document 17 Filed 06/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

5 (SAC) (“asking for a “[r]efund [of] any money owed me”); Docket No. 16, at 6 (SAC) (stating 

in ¶ 1 that, “[i]f you examine taxes, I’m still owed a small refund” for 2000); Docket No. 16, at 6 

(SAC) (stating in ¶ 2 that “[r]elief I seek is to have refund for 1998 payed [sic]”); Docket No. 16, 

at 7 (SAC) (stating in ¶ 3 that “[r]elief I seek is to have 2006 self employment corrected, refund 

payed [sic], earning reported to Social Security correctly with self employment”).

2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346, district courts have jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil action

against the United States 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The Court acknowledges that 

Ms. Jones has not sued the United States but rather has named individual IRS employees as 

defendants. However, under 26 U.S.C. § 7422, such a claim “may be maintained only against the 

United States and not against any officer or employee of the United States.” 26 U.S.C. §

7422(f)(1); see also id. § 7422(f)(2) (providing that a “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”).

3. In the case of a civil action brought by an individual under § 1346(a), venue is 

properly only “in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(1). Here, 

there is no indication that Ms. Jones lives in the Northern District of California. Rather, her filings 

– both with this Court and the IRS – indicate that her residence is in Salton City, California, which 

is located in the Southern District of California.

4. The Court therefore TRANSFERS Ms. Jones’s case to the Southern District of 

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying 

venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer 

such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”).

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01470-GPC-NLS Document 17 Filed 06/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to SEAL

all of Ms. Jones’s second amended complaint, except for the pages 1-8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01470-GPC-NLS Document 17 Filed 06/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3