Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01839-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monica McKenna
Defendant
Alaric Scott Jr.
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALARIC SCOTT, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA MCKENNA,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1839-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Alaric Scott, Jr., who proceeds in this action without counsel,1has requested 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)2 Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

2

Plaintiff, who claims to be a member of the “Moorish National Republic; Moorish Divine and 

National Movement of the World,” and an authorized representative of the person (spelled in all 

capital letters) ALARIC SCOTT JR., did not fully complete the affidavit regarding financial 

ability. Nevertheless, in light of the recommended disposition in this case, the issue of plaintiff’s 

financial status is moot. 

Case 2:16-cv-01839-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/20/16 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

For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be dismissed and

that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this court be denied as moot. 

A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 

to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 

raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant Monica McKenna, a revenue agent with the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”), made an erroneous, gross administrative oversight, which resulted in 

the illegal assessment of taxes, the unauthorized assessment of a penalty, and the placement of a 

multi-million dollar lien on plaintiff’s property, thereby preventing plaintiff from conducting 

commerce legally. Liberally construed, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s actions violated the 

Internal Revenue Laws and plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the 

amount of $1,000,000.00 by cashier’s check, as well as injunctive relief (removal of the tax lien 

from all of plaintiff’s property). (See generally ECF No. 1.)

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief 

(removal of the tax lien). 

“It is well settled that the United States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit 

unless it has expressly waived such immunity and consented to be sued. Such waiver cannot be 

implied, but must be unequivocally expressed. Where a suit has not been consented to by the 

United States, dismissal of the action is required.” Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, it “has long been the rule that the bar of 

sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming officers and employees of the United States as 

defendants. Thus, a suit against IRS employees in their official capacity is essentially a suit 

against the United States.” Id. In this case, although plaintiff has named defendant in her 

Case 2:16-cv-01839-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/20/16 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

individual capacity, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief can only be conceivably asserted against 

defendant in her official capacity (i.e., as a claim against the United States), because potential 

success on that claim would compel the United States, and not defendant individually, to remove 

the lien. See Krieg v. Mills, 117 F. Supp. 2d 964, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (collecting cases). 

Because there has been no proper showing that the United States has waived its sovereign 

immunity with respect to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, the court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over that claim. Id.; Gilbert, 756 F.2d at 1458-59. Moreover, the Anti-Injunction Act 

also generally withdraws jurisdiction from state and federal courts over any actions seeking 

injunctions prohibiting the collection of federal taxes. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); Krieg, 117 F. 

Supp. 2d at 967-68. 

Additionally, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s damages claim. 

To be sure, sovereign immunity does not bar actions for damages against a federal official in her 

individual capacity for violations of an individual’s statutory or constitutional rights. See Bivens 

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Gilbert, 

756 F.2d at 1459. Such claims are commonly referred to as Bivens claims. However, courts have 

consistently held that taxpayers are barred from bringing Bivens claims for damages against 

individual employees of the IRS. See Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(holding that “the remedies provided by Congress, particularly the right to sue the government for 

a refund of taxes improperly collected, foreclose a damage action under Bivens in this situation”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as 

moot.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and 

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous 

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions 

Case 2:16-cv-01839-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/20/16 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

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: September 20, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01839-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 4