Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03305/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03305-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tony Stewart,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Internal Revenue Service,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-03305-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 2), which the Court grants. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint 

(Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1 before it is allowed to be served. Pursuant to 

that screening, the complaint is dismissed. 

I. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a complaint is subject to dismissal if it contains 

claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Id. Although Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands 

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

1 Although section 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

Case 2:24-cv-03305-DWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 5
- 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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts must “construe pro se filings liberally.” 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] 

‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id.

(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). Conclusory and vague 

allegations, however, will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. 

of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). A liberal interpretation may not supply 

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id.

“If a pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled 

to an opportunity to amend before the final dismissal of the action.” Ball v. Cty. of 

Maricopa, 2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D. Ariz. 2017) (concluding that complaint could not be 

amended to state a cognizable claim and dismissing with prejudice).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff sues the Internal Revenue Service. (Doc. 1.) 

The facts alleged by Plaintiff in the “Statement of Claim” section of the pro se

complaint form are as follows:

The IRS has been holding and stealing my refunds for the past few years . . . . They have used their private sector called TAS illegally by calling me on 

saturday night at 9pm with a promise to expetite my federal tax refund and 

only to have it stuck in processing for more than 6 months. Upon calling the 

Case 2:24-cv-03305-DWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 5
- 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

IRS and TAS to address my refund they have openly admitted to holding my 

refund on purpose in hopes that i lose it by accumulating a massive debt with 

the IRS.

(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks “punitive money damages . . . of more than $75,000.” Id.

Rule 8 requires “clarity,” such that a defendant should easily be able to determine 

“what [it] is being sued for.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). That 

is lacking here. At any rate, the facts alleged are insufficient to support any cognizable 

claims. See generally 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (“No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in 

any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or 

illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without 

authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully 

collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according 

to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in 

pursuance thereof.”); Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 

2007) (“If a person neglects to file an administrative claim as required by § 7422(a), that 

person has failed to satisfy a necessary condition of the waiver of sovereign immunity

under § 1346(a)(1), and . . . the district court is necessarily divested of jurisdiction over the 

action.”); 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511, 6532 (statutes of limitations); cf. Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 

1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he remedies provided by Congress, particularly the right 

to sue the government for a refund of taxes improperly collected, foreclose a damage action 

. . . .”).

The Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. “Dismissal of a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies 

of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 

1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If a 

pleading can be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an 

opportunity to amend before the final dismissal of the action.” Ball v. Cty. of Maricopa, 

2017 WL 1833611, *1 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must adhere to all portions of Rule 7.1 of the Local 

Case 2:24-cv-03305-DWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 5
- 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

Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”). Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that the amended 

complaint must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Specifically, the amended complaint shall contain a short and plain statement 

of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of 

each specific claim asserted against each Defendant, and a good faith demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). These pleading requirements are to be set forth in 

separate and discrete numbered paragraphs, and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, 

and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its 

claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single 

set of circumstances.”). 

Plaintiff is advised that if the amended complaint fails to comply with the Court’s 

instructions explained in this Order, the action may be dismissed pursuant to 

section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 

dismissal with prejudice of amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a)). Given 

this specific guidance on pleading requirements, the Court is not inclined to grant Plaintiff

leave to file another amended complaint if the first amended complaint is found to be 

deficient. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal 

with prejudice where district court had instructed pro se plaintiff regarding deficiencies in 

prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 

866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend 

is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”).

Plaintiff is directed to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and is reminded that the Federal Court Self-Service Clinic provides free 

civil legal help to self-represented litigants. (See Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, Doc. 

4 at 6.)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Application to Proceed in District Court without 

Case 2:24-cv-03305-DWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with leave 

to file an amended complaint by December 20, 2024. The amended complaint must adhere 

to LRCiv 7.1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

by December 20, 2024, the Clerk of Court shall terminate the action without further notice.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-03305-DWL Document 5 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 5