Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00358-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Capous
Plaintiff
United States Internal Revenue Service
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS CAPOUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-00358-DMR 

ORDER ON MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER

Dkt. No. 13

On February 13, 2013, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Nicholas Capous’ application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 

[Docket No. 6.] Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint, in which he sought to recover from 

the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) $150,000 in taxes that he alleges the IRS wrongfully 

collected from him in 1988, and to challenge a June 2011 IRS tax assessment. [Docket No. 7.] 

On March 23, 2013, the court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and closed the 

case, noting that Plaintiff had conceded that he had not satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites to 

filing a lawsuit and concluding that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. [Docket No. 8.] 

The court noted that Plaintiff might be able to cure this defect in his complaint at some point in the 

future. Id.

On September 26, 2013, without seeking leave to do so, Plaintiff filed a second amended 

complaint in which he asserted that he had cured the defect of his previous complaints. [Docket 

No. 10.] On October 17, 2013, the court again dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction, 

holding that Plaintiff had not yet satisfied the jurisdictional requirements necessary to bring a suit 

in district court. [Docket No. 11.] In its order, the court noted that “Plaintiff is not granted further 

leave to amend the complaint in this case. If Plaintiff wishes to file a new complaint in the future 

regarding these allegations, he must file a new lawsuit.” Id. at 3.

Case 4:13-cv-00358-DMR Document 14 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Reconsider on Grounds 

of New Evidence,” in which he states that “the preexisting legal obstacles have now been 

eliminated.” [Docket No. 13.] Attached to the submission is a declaration by Plaintiff dated April 

23, 2014, a document titled “Account Transcript,” and a copy of a completed IRS form titled 

“Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.” It is unclear how the attachments relate to his 

previously-dismissed complaints, and Plaintiff provides no explanation or context for any of the 

documents, and does not discuss how “the preexisting legal obstacles” have been “eliminated.” 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “motion to reconsider” is denied. As the court instructed Plaintiff in its 

October 17, 2013 order, Plaintiff must file a new lawsuit if he seeks to pursue his allegations 

against the IRS. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he files a new complaint, it must be complete in 

itself; he may not incorporate his prior complaints or allegations by reference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-cv-00358-DMR Document 14 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2