Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01358-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY-LINN PACKER, et al. No. CIV S-07-1358-JAM-CMK

Plaintiffs, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COLLEEN ROWE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs bring this civil action against several defendants. The complaint in this

case is titled “Quo-Warrento-Complaint.” The Civil Cover Sheet states this case is for civil

damages arising under 18 U.S.C.S. §§1001, 1002, dealing with defrauding the United States and

providing criminal punishment for so doing. Currently pending before the court are two motions

to dismiss (Docs. 4 and 11). A hearing was held on November 13, 2007 on the first motion to

dismiss (Doc. 4). The hearing on the second motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) was taken off calendar.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ complaint names as defendants the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

and several IRS employees, Commonwealth Land Title Company (“Commonwealth”), and the

State of California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”). However, it is unknown what the plaintiffs’

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

2

claims actually are. The complaint appears to be written in some sort of code, and does not

contain any actual decipherable facts. Plaintiffs appear to be complaining about taxes, the

postage stamp, witnesses and evidence. They also appear to be complaining about something to

do with maritime law (mentioning vessels and dry-dock). 

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY 

The motion to dismiss filed by this defendant is brought under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It is based on Plaintiffs’ failure to state any facts to support any claim. 

Commonwealth alleges plaintiffs’ complaint is incomprehensible and literally impossible to

glean what complaints, if any, plaintiffs have against this defendant. 

Commonwealth also claims service is defective. Plaintiffs sent Commonwealth a

copy of the summons and complaint via certified mail, but not addressed to any officer or agent. 

Commonwealth argues that it is a corporation, and service is required to be accomplished by

delivering copies to an officer or agent of the corporation or possibly the Secretary of State. 

In opposition to this motion, plaintiffs filed another document titled “QuoWarrento-Complaint.” This document is written in the same style as the original complaint and

is just as unintelligible. Plaintiffs failed to address any of the issues raised in the motion to

dismiss in any intelligible manner. In addition, plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing held on

this motion. Local Rule 78-230(j) provides that failure to appear at a hearing on a motion may

be deemed a withdrawal of the opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

As the real party in interest, the United States of America brings the motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),

insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), and failure to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6). The United States claims that the United States is the only proper defendant, as the

individuals named in the complaint are government officials acting in their official capacity, and

that plaintiffs’ real complaint can only be with the IRS, and thus the United States. In addition,

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

3

the United States claims that it is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 

The United States also argues that service was not proper, in that plaintiffs simply mailed copies

of the complaint to the individual defendants named. No personal service was attempted, and

neither the Attorney General nor the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California

was served. Finally, the United States claims the complaint fails to state a claim as the complaint

is completely unintelligible and fails to state any facts. 

Plaintiffs did not file any opposition to this motion. 

DISCUSSION

The basis of the motions to dismiss are the lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

failure to properly serve the complaint, and failure to state a claim. As to the lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Plaintiffs failed to make any

meaningful objection to the motions to dismiss, and in fact failed to file an objection at all

against the United States’ motion. As plaintiffs’ complaint is unintelligible and can not establish

subject matter jurisdiction, and they failed to file any opposition to the motion in order to

establish subject matter jurisdiction, the court finds that they have not met their burden. The

undersigned will recommend that the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be

granted.

Plaintiffs appear to have served the summons and complaint by sending the

summons and complaint to the defendants by certified mail. The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure require service upon the United States, its agencies or employees to be competed by

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States attorney for the district

where the action is brought and to the Attorney General of the United States. See Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 4(i). Defendants claim no such service was completed on the United States attorney or the

Attorney General. 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

4

Commonwealth also claims defective service of process. Commonwealth states

that it is a corporation. Accordingly, service of process can be accomplished by delivering copies

of the summons and complaint to an officer or agent of the corporation, an agent for service of

process, or, possibly, the Secretary of State. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10, Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 4(b)(1). Plaintiffs failed to direct service of process at any officer or agent, and instead

simply mailed the summons and complaint, via certified mail, to the corporation.

 “A party must be properly served for the Court to obtain personal jurisdiction

over that party.” Hickory Travel Sys., Inc. v. TUI AG, 213 F.R.D. 547, 551-52 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

When a defendant challenges service, “plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that service was

valid under Rule 4.” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, (9th Cir. 2004), see also Hope v. Otis

Elevator Co., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1244 (E.D. Cal. 2005). Here, the executed summons

plaintiffs filed with the court appear to be defective on their face. Plaintiffs submitted copies of

the certified mailings, but they did not include mailings to the United States attorney, Attorney

General, or any specific officer or agent of Commonwealth. Plaintiffs failed to properly oppose

the motions to dismiss, and therefore, have failed to meet their burden in establishing the validity

of their service of process. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend the motions to dismiss

be granted for failure to properly serve the defendants.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although a pro se

litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those

pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice

of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

The only other named defendant in this matter is the State of California Franchise

1

Tax Board, who has not appeared. The proof of service plaintiffs filed indicates that service was

attempted by mailing, via certified mail, a copy of the summons and complaint to the FTB.

Proper service on a state governmental entity is accomplished by delivering a copy of the

summons and complaint to its chief executive officer or to the clerk, secretary, president,

presiding officer, or other head of its governing body. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(j), Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 416.50. Delivery of the summons and complaint to the entity is not properly

accomplished by mail under § 415.30 unless written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is

executed. Therefore, service does not appear to have been properly executed against any of the

defendants, including the FTB. In addition, as the complaint is unintelligible in violation of Rule

8, it should be dismissed in its entirety as against all of the defendants. 

5

Cir. 1995). Here, plaintiffs’ complaint is unintelligible and thus does not meet the pleading

requirements of Rule 8. 

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual

allegations. However, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, – U.S. –, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). As the

complaint here is unintelligible, and completely void of facts, the undersigned finds that it also

fails to state claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The undersigned recommends the motions to dismiss be

granted for failure to state a claim.1

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 

1. Defendant Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) be granted;

2. Defendant United States’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be granted; 

3. The complaint be dismissed in its entirety; and

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

6

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 30, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01358-JAM-CMK Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 6 of 6