Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00420-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

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

DAVID W. FERNANDES, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD VEHICLE )

REGISTRATION COLLECTIONS, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv0420 AWI SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff David W. Fernandes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

the instant action on March 16, 2007. He files suit against the Franchise Tax Board Vehicle

Collections Board and requests reinstatement of an allegedly fraudulent debit from his account.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

Case 1:07-cv-00420-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/07/07 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Analysis

In a one page complaint, Plaintiff explains that he is disputing a fraudulent debit on his

account in the amount of $250.00. He states that he did not authorize this debit and requests

reimbursement in the amount of $250.00, as well as any related charges. He also requests that he

receive an accurate statement. Plaintiff provides no further factual information.

The United States may only be sued to the extent it has consented to suit. United States

v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990). Any waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity

cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed, and such waivers must be strictly

construed in favor of the sovereign. Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986). 

Case 1:07-cv-00420-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/07/07 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

Where there is a lack of consent to suit by the United States, dismissal of the action for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction is required. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983);

Gilbert v. Da Grossa, 756 F.2d 1455 (9th Cir.1985).

On his civil cover sheet, Plaintiff indicates that this action is brought pursuant to 26

U.S.C. § 6330. This statute is part of the Internal Revenue Code and governs the procedure to be

followed before the government can levy property for collection of taxes. According to the

statute, a taxpayer must be notified in writing of their right to a hearing before the government

can proceed with the collection of taxes by way of a levy on a taxpayer’s property. The notice

must be provided at least 30 days prior to imposition of the levy and must include information

such as the amount of the unpaid taxes, the right to request a hearing and actions that could

prevent the levy. 

The hearing provided by 26 U.S.C. § 1330(b), however, is a hearing before the Internal

Revenue Service Office of Appeals. Within thirty days of a decision, the taxpayer may appeal

the decision to the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1). The statute further provides that

jurisdiction shall remain with Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals. 26 U.S.C. §

6330(d)(2). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of sufficient facts to determine where Plaintiff is in the

process of contesting the levy, or if he has even started the process. Nor can the Court say for

certain that the debit was in fact a levy upon property for the collection of taxes. In any event,

the statute under which Plaintiff purports to file this action does not confer jurisdiction upon this

Court to hear his dispute. Rather, the statute specifically states that jurisdiction shall remain with

the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals. Absent allegations that the dispute somehow

falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, this Court cannot exercise subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. See eg. Fabricus v. United States, 2002 WL 31662301

(E.D.Cal. 2002)

This Court also lacks jurisdiction to the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise due process

violations. District courts do not have jurisdiction over civil claims challenging taxes unless

litigants first pay the assessed tax and then raise these claims in a refund suit. Flora v. United

Case 1:07-cv-00420-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/07/07 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

States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) (holding 28 U .S.C. § 1346(a), which gives district courts

jurisdiction over civil suits challenging tax assessments, requires full payment of assessed tax

prior to suit).

Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant complaint. As

this deficiency cannot be remedied, the Court recommends that the action be dismissed without

leave to amend. 

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the above, the Court recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00420-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/07/07 Page 4 of 4