Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02497/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02497-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Russell Hart
Plaintiff
IRS
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RUSSELL HART,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE,

Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2497 DFL PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

On July 7, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file,

by July 20, proof of service of process upon defendant. The

court provided specific instructions, identifying the

individuals, agencies and addresses to whom plaintiff need send a

copy of the summons and complaint in order to comply with the

federal rules of civil procedure.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 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

1 The preamble to plaintiff’s “Status Report” states: 

The nature of this case is, a born free State Citizen, now made a

slave by the IRS, seeks his freedom restored. There is no law

rule or regulation that places me the petitioner within the

purview or venue of the U.S. Code Title 26, just prima facia

evidence. I am therefore without the jurisdiction of the IRS.

2

On July 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Status Report”1 in

which he states he served process on May 24, 2005. He attached a

copy of forged summons and an incompetent “proof” of service.

The court admonished in its July 7, 2005, order that 

failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation

this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed due to

plaintiff’s failure timely to serve process (Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m)) and failure to comply with the rules and orders of this

court (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)

(authorizing dismissal pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C) “[i]f a party

. . . fails to obey a . . . pretrial order”); E. D. Cal. L. R.

11-110 (“[f]ailure of . . . a party to comply with these Rules or

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

within the inherent power of the court”).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable David F. Levi, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 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

3

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 Page 3 of 3