Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01536-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Edward Hodgson
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

TIMOTHY EDWARD HODGSON, 

 NO. CIV. S-07-1536 WBS JFM

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Timothy Edward Hodgson brought this action

against defendant United States of America alleging a violation

of the “Fair Tax Collection Practices” statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6304,

and seeking declaratory relief. On November 5, 2007, this court

granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)); Hodgson v. U.S., No. 07-1536, 2007 WL

3274183, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2007). The court gave

plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint consistent

with its November 5 Order. Id. at *3.

Case 2:07-cv-01536-WBS -JFM Document 30 Filed 02/05/08 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

1 In relevant part, § 1291 provides: “The courts of

appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all

final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . .

except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1921.

2

On December 3, 2007, plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint that pled substantively identical allegations to those

dismissed in the court’s November 5 Order. (First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”).) Plaintiff also filed an accompanying letter

confirming that the First Amended Complaint “stands by the

substance of the original complaint,” and he requested that the

court enter a final, appealable judgment per 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1

(Dkt. No. 26 (Pl.’s “Statement of Intent to Stand on Substantive

Issues of Complaint”).) Defendant now moves to dismiss

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, with prejudice, based on the

same grounds delineated in the court’s November 5 Order. See

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1079 n.7

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] dismissal with prejudice is an appealable

final order.”). 

Though plaintiff purports to “stand by the substance of

his original complaint,” he cannot literally elect to stand by

the substance of an already dismissed complaint when he has in

fact filed an amended complaint. See Lopez v. City of Needles,

95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1996) (“An order dismissing a complaint

without prejudice may be final and appealable if the plaintiff

cannot cure the defect that led to dismissal or elects to stand

on the dismissed complaint.”) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). However, because the allegations in the First Amended

Case 2:07-cv-01536-WBS -JFM Document 30 Filed 02/05/08 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

2 Aside from updating the date of signing, changing “pro

per” to “per se,” correcting a misspelling of plaintiff’s name,

and including a jury demand, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

includes two modifications to paragraphs 35 and 41 of the

original Complaint. With respect to paragraph 35, plaintiff

changed “Mr. Goldstein’s written power of attorney is . . . on

file with the Secretary” to “Mr. Goldstein’s name and address . .

. was ‘readily ascertainable’ from the Secretary’s records.” (FAC

¶ 35.) With respect to paragraph 36, plaintiff added that a

taxpayer may also have on file many “designations of persons

designated under the tax information authorization system.” (Id.

at ¶ 36.)

3

Complaint are substantively identical2 to the allegations in the

original Complaint, they suffer the same fatal deficiencies

identified in the court’s November 5 Order. Hodgson, 2007 WL

3274183, at *2-3. 

Accordingly, the court will grant defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for the reasons set

forth in its dismissal of the original Complaint. Id. Because

plaintiff has displayed an unwillingness or inability to cure the

deficiencies and the court interprets his supplemental statement

as an election to stand on the substance of the First Amended

Complaint, the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint will be

“with prejudice.” See Lynch v. City of Alhambra, 880 F.2d 1122,

1124 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Because [the plaintiff] failed to cure the

deficiency perceived by the district court . . . the dismissal

was converted to a final order of dismissal with prejudice,

appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice be,

and the same hereby is, GRANTED;

Case 2:07-cv-01536-WBS -JFM Document 30 Filed 02/05/08 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

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

DATED: February 1, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-01536-WBS -JFM Document 30 Filed 02/05/08 Page 4 of 4