Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00667/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00667-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Internal Revenue Service
Defendant
Shi Min Zhang
Plaintiff

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

SHI MIN ZHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0667 JLT BAM

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 13)

Shi Min Zhang, proceeding pro se, filed this action against the Internal Revenue Service 

for alleged negligent and harassing practices over the last eight years. (Doc. 1.) The Government

filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 

12(b)(6). (Doc. 7.) 

The magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies 

required to waive sovereign immunity, invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, and bring a claim under 

26 U.S.C. § 7422.” (Doc. 13 at 7.) Similarly, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff had not 

“complied with the requirements of § 7433(d)(1) by exhausting administrative remedies before 

filing suit,” and did not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under that provision.” (Id. at 8.) Further, 

the magistrate judge found “even if [the Court] had jurisdiction, which it does not, Plaintiff fails 

to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.” (Id. at 9.) The magistrate judge 

found the pleading deficiencies identified could not be cured. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate 

Case 1:24-cv-00667-JLT-BAM Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

judge recommended the Government’s motion to dismiss be granted and the complaint be 

dismissed with prejudice. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 9.) The Court also informed the parties that 

the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to 

challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 10, quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the Government filed objections, and the 

time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the finding that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the action is supported by the record and proper analysis. Likewise, the Court 

agrees that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. However, based upon the initial finding that 

the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice is proper. See Kelly v. 

Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (“because the district court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without prejudice”); Missouri 

ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017) (the proper dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction “is without prejudice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 21, 2024 (Doc. 13) are

adopted in part.

2. The Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, due to lack of jurisdiction.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00667-JLT-BAM Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2