Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00436-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROBERT DUCHESNE; JACKSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ANGELA MEDELLIN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-436 REC/SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO VACATE AND STRIKE

UNITED STATES

PLEADINGS/MOTIONS FOR LACK

OF STANDING, GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND, AND DIRECTING ENTRY

OF JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS 

On July 11, 2005, the court heard defendant Angela

Medellin's Motion to Dismiss. 

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses

this action without leave to amend

Plaintiff “Robert Duchesne; Jackson”, proceeding in pro per,

has filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971) against Internal Revenue Service Agent Angela

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 10
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

Medellin in her individual capacity. The Complaint alleges that

Medellin

at all times relevant to this complaint, was

presumably employed by the IRS and acting

under color of law in her individual

capacity. Said defendant is enriched,

rewarded and compensated for her official

capacity as an IRS employee, and is being

sued herein in her individual capacity.

The caption of the Complaint also names “Any and All Does, each

in their Individual Capacity”. The Complaint alleges that

defendant Medellin, signed and issued a fraudulent “Notice of

Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income”, served the Notice of

Levy on plaintiff’s employer “knowing that said Notice of Levy

was only applicable to Federal Employees”, attempted to serve the

Notice of Levy “as if it had the force of a judicial order”, and

“act[ed] in concert to trespass on private property with

malicious intent under color of law without judicial order (due

process).” The Complaint further alleges that, on May 17, 2004,

Medellin issued the Notice of Levy to plaintiff’s employer,

Greyhound Lines, Inc., levying plaintiff’s compensation, and that

Greyhound complied with the levy on the dates and in the amounts

set forth in the Complaint. The Complaint further alleges in

pertinent part:

15. The herein above described actions and

omissions engaged under color of Federal

authority by the Defendant, including

Defendants’ employers, peers and ALL OTHER

DOES, sued as persons, responsible because of

their authorization, assistance, condoning,

knowledge of the conspiracy to commit fraud,

and/or ratification thereof for the acts of

their employees, their peers, and ALL OTHER

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 10
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

DOES, being public servants, deprived

Plaintiff’s [sic] of his rights secured to

him and expected by him pursuant to the

Constitution for the United States of America

in its entirety including but not limited to

the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be

free from the unlawful seizure of his person,

house, papers, and effects; and Plaintiff’s

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to

equal protection and to due process under the

law.

16. FIRST CAUSE: Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment right to be free from unreasonable

seizure was violated when the said federal

actors (Defendants) did not charge the proper

authorities within the IRS to acquire the

proper authorization to seize private

property with probable cause and a judicial

determination (due process), and then did not

inform and coordinate their activities within

the law. Thus, Defendants acted with malice

to commit fraud and conspiracy to commit

fraud, on behalf of the federal government

without judicial consent, outside of their

jurisdiction, and carried out by persons

other than statutorily created peace officers

with delegated authority.

17. SECOND CAUSE: Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment right to be secure in his house,

papers, and effects from unreasonable or

violent unprovoked attacks, as unreasonable

searches and seizures by defendants was

violated by each and every Defendants’

actions either directly or indirectly.

18. THIRD CAUSE: Plaintiff’s Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process

were violated by Defendants who either

physically assisted in this abduction of

Plaintiff’s personal property or who were

assisted by others and Plaintiff will prove

such as Plaintiff proceeds through discovery. 

Defendants used a false filing for the

purpose of committing fraud and conspiracy to

commit fraud, without a warrant, taking

possession of the Plaintiff’s property,

having knowledge of such wrong doings,

conspired therefore to, and had the power to

prevent such acts, for which said Defendants

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 10
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

are liable for all damages incurred thereby.

19. FOURTH CAUSE: By purposely omitting any

reference to Title 26, U.S.C., § 6331(a) on

the reverse side of the fraudulent IRS

‘Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other

Income’ (Form 668-W(ICS), Defendants

concealed the fact that Title 26, U.S.C., §

6331 Levies apply only to Federal Employees

and not to private Citizens.

The Complaint prays for compensatory damages in the amount of

$3,442.48 (the total amount of plaintiff’s wages withheld

pursuant to the Notice of Levy) and for punitive damages in the

amount of $10,327.44.

The United States, acting on behalf of defendant Medellin,

moves the court to be substituted as the party defendant and

moves to dismiss the Complaint on several grounds.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition as such to this motion

to dismiss. Rather, plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Vacate and

Strike United States Pleadings/Motions for Lack of Standing.” In

this motion, plaintiff asserts in pertinent part:

As Plaintiff’s complaint was expressly filed

against defendants in their individual

capacities and the United States was not

named as a defendant, counsel for the United

States (Counsel) has trespassed on this case

as an interloper, having no business in this

Court or standing to file a motion of any

kind in the instant case. Further, there is

no indication the United States has

petitioned or been accepted by the Court as

an amicus curiae. Therefore, the document

titled ‘United States’ Motion to Dismiss’ has

no relevance in this Court and should be

vacated and stricken from the record.

Plaintiff also requests an evidentiary hearing. 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Motion to Dismiss is

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 4 of 10
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

1At oral argument, plaintiff asserted that dismissal of this

action is improper because the parties dispute whether the action

can be heard by a United States Magistrate Judge as opposed to an

Article III judge. Plaintiff apparently is referring to his

challenge to the authority of the United States Magistrate Judge to

hear and resolve specified pretrial matters. The court has ruled

that plaintiff’s objection is without merit. Therefore,

plaintiff’s argument that dismissal is improper because of this

dispute is baseless.

5

without merit and is denied without further proceedings. As

discussed infra, the United States is not a proper party

defendant to the Complaint as pleaded. However, there is nothing

improper about the United States filing a motion in defense of a

claim against a federal employee, especially where, as here,

Medellin has signed a written authorization for the United States

to represent her in this action.1

A. Substitution of United States as Proper Party Defendant.

The United States argues that it should be substituted as

the proper party defendant in this action. 

The United States is entitled to be substituted as the

proper party defendant to the extent that the defendants named in

the Complaint are sued because of actions taken by Internal

Revenue Service employees in their official capacities. Such a

suit is a suit against the United States. Ferrel v. Brown, 847

F.Supp. 1524, 1526 (W.D. Wash. 1993), aff’d, 40 F.3d 1049 (9th

Cir. 1994); see also Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458

(9th Cir. 1985).

However, as noted supra, the Complaint alleges that

defendants, sued in their individual capacities, have violated

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 5 of 10
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

2Nonetheless, the United States appropriately is acting as

counsel for defendants.

6

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Actions against federal

employees in their individual capacities are permitted where the

employees are alleged to have violated the Constitution while

acting under color of federal authority. Gilbert v. DaGrossa,

id. at 1459. 

Consequently, to the extent that the United States moves to

be substituted as the proper party defendant, this motion is

denied.2

B. Failure to State a Claim.

Defendant moves to dismiss this Complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Medellin

or any of the Doe Defendants.

A complaint should not be dismissed unless, after all of

plaintiff’s allegations of material fact are accepted as true, it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

which would entitle him to relief. Furthermore, the court must

construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally in determining

whether a claim has been stated. Ortez v. Washington County,

State of Or., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.Supp. 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). In addition, “in

apprising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow ... the

accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for

failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 6 of 10
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

7

would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-

46 (1957). Before a district court’s dismissal of a complaint

without leave to amend will be affirmed, the district court must

have first adopted less drastic alternatives, such as advising

plaintiff of the deficiencies in the pleading and giving leave to

amend to correct them. Id. Although a district court should

grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was

made, the court may dismiss without leave to amend if it

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the

allegation of other facts. See Cook, Perkiss & Liche v. N. Cal.

Collection Services, 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Complaint alleges that it is brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. However, there is no valid basis for a claim

under Section 1983 because the allegations of the Complaint are

against federal officials acting under color of federal law. 

Section 1983 provides a remedy only for deprivation of

constitutional rights by a person acting under color of law of

any state or territory of the District of Columbia. See DalyMurphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1988).

Therefore, to the extent that the Complaint purports to

allege a claim for relief pursuant to Section 1983, the Complaint

is dismissed. This dismissal is without leave to amend because

there is nothing in the Complaint, plaintiff’s motion to strike

or, plaintiff’s comments at oral argument from which it may be

inferred that Medellin conspired to act in concert with state

officials to act under color of state law to deprive plaintiff of

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 7 of 10
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

8

his constitutional rights. See Billings v. United States, 57

F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1995).

To the extent that the Complaint purports to allege a claim

pursuant to Bivens, the Complaint does not state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. A right of action under Bivens for

allegedly unconstitutional tax collection activity is not implied

by the court because of the comprehensive and exclusive remedies

provided by the Internal Revenue Code and regulations, including

26 U.S.C. § 7433. See Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1096 (1991); Ivy v. Mason, 30

F.Supp.2d 1268, 1270 (D.Idaho 1998); see also Adams v. Johnson,

355 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, to the extent that the

Complaint purports to allege a Bivens claim, it is dismissed with

prejudice.

In his “Motion to Vacate and Strike United States

Pleadings/Motions for Lack of Standing”, plaintiff asserts that

he filed this action because he has discovered “several

delegations of authority from the Secretary to the Commissioner

wherein the Secretary granted the Commissioner authority to

administer internal revenue laws within specific areas over which

Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction”, that those

areas are “‘U.S. territories and insular possessions’, ‘Panama

Canal Zone’, ‘Puerto Rico’ and ‘the Virgin Islands’.” Plaintiff

contends that “[t]here is no delegation of authority for the

Commissioner to administer internal revenue laws within the

several 50 states; areas over which Congress DOES NOT have

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 8 of 10
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

3The United States contends that the Complaint cannot be

amended to state claims for relief against the United States that

the IRS was not authorized to serve the Notice of Levy under Title

26, or that plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

§ 7433 or under the Federal Tort Claims Act and that sovereign

immunity bars any suit against the United States. Although

plaintiff repeatedly emphasized that this action is not against the

United States and did not respond to the merits of these

contentions, the court agrees with the United States and concludes

that the Complaint cannot be so amended.

9

exclusive legislative jurisdiction.” Plaintiff contends:

[T]his case is NOT about taxes. It is about

what authority Defendants have to administer

and enforce internal revenue laws (subtitle A

and C laws) within the several 50 states. No

matter how much the United States would like

to distract this court into other irrelevant

issues, let it be clear to this court that

the issue is one of the authority of the

Defendants to act on behalf of the Secretary

against Plaintiff and nothing more. 

Defendant’s position is based on his reading of several Treasury

Department Orders (TDOs). 

Defendant’s position is without merit. See Powers v.

C.I.R., 1990 WL 199043 (U.S.Tax Ct. 1990); Ross v. C.I.R., 1992

WL 456827 (S.D.Ind. 1992). Therefore, to the extent that

plaintiff may be seeking leave to amend the Complaint to state a

claim based on the position articulated above, leave to amend is

denied as futile.3

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Vacate and Strike United States

Pleadings/Motions for Lack of Standing” is denied.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. This action

is dismissed without leave to amend against all defendants.

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00436-REC -SMS Document 24 Filed 07/15/05 Page 10 of 10