Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00148-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kirell F. Bettis-Taylor
Plaintiff
K. Green
Defendant
Internal Revenue Service
Defendant
A. Raschke
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRELL FRANCIS BETTIS TRUST and 

KIRELL F. BETTIS-TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS), 

K. GREEN, and A. RASCHKE,

Defendants.

No: 1:20-cv-00148-NONE-SKO 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY COURT ORDER, DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO UPDATE 

PLAINTIFF’S NAME ON THE DOCKET; 

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE CASE

(Doc. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9) 

Plaintiff Kirell F. Bettis-Taylor1, a state prisoner, is appearing pro se in this civil rights 

action. On January 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with the court, but did not file an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) nor did he pay the filing fee.

On February 18, 2020, the court, having concluded that plaintiff is subject to the three 

strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that he 

failed to satisfy the imminent danger exception contained within that provision, ordered plaintiff 

to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised that failure to pay the 

full filing fee in compliance with this order would result in this action being dismissed. (Id. at 5.) 

1 Plaintiff’s inmate number is T35161. It appears that he uses more than one name, including 

Kirell Taylor and Kirell Francis Bettis. See Bettis v. U.S. Dep’t of State, no. 1:19-cv-02802-UNA 

(D.D.C.) (Oct. 29, 2019) (noting that plaintiff has filed cases using more than one name).

Case 1:20-cv-00148-DAD-SKO Document 11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 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

2

The February 18, 2020 Order was served on plaintiff by U.S. Mail. 

Rather than pay the filing fee, plaintiff has submitted two additional motions to proceed in 

forma pauperis, both of which indicate that he presently is facing imminent danger of serious 

physical injury because he refuses to withdraw a staff complaint about an alleged excessive force 

incident that is mentioned in (although not obviously connected to the primary issues raised in) 

his complaint. (Docs. No. 4 & 5.) Neither motion articulates “specific fact allegations of 

ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 

serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Plaintiff has also filed a request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff does 

not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), 

and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable 

method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the 

most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a 

district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the 

[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court will not order appointment of pro 

bono counsel in this case. To the extent the complaint is even comprehensible, plaintiff appears 

to be asserting that the Internal Revenue Service owes him many hundreds of billions of dollars. 

The claims are far-fetched, implausible, and not grounded in reality or law. As a result, the court 

declines to appoint pro bono counsel. 

Finally, to avoid any prison mail issues, plaintiff requests that his name be modified in the 

record to reflect his full name: Kirell F. Bettis-Taylor. (Doc. No. 7.) This request is GRANTED, 

and the Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket accordingly. 

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00148-DAD-SKO Document 11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 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

3

ORDER

In sum, plaintiff has been warned that he must pay the $400.00 filing fee or face dismissal 

of this case. He has failed to pay the fee by the relevant deadline. Therefore, his case is 

DISMISSED for failure to obey a court order. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the 

docket to reflect plaintiff’s full name, Kirell F. Bettis-Taylor. The Clerk of Court is further 

directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes of closure and to CLOSE THIS 

CASE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00148-DAD-SKO Document 11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 3