UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM

JASON RICHARDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a review of pro se Plaintiff Jason Richardson’s 

Complaint, ECF No. [1], docketed on November 7, 2022. Richardson has not paid the filing fee 

but has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. [3]. Because Richardson is a pro se litigant 

who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) 

apply. Under the statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines 

that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having screened Richardson’s Complaint, the Court concludes it 

is subject to dismissal.

To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “A 

party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable 

to a single set of circumstances.” Id. 10(b). More importantly, “a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM

2

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up).

Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard 

than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018). Still, 

a pro se party must abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. See 

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). 

Richardson’s Complaint is written on the form for suits arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 

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

See generally ECF No. [1]. However, Richardson does not claim § 1983 or Bivens as a basis for 

this Court’s jurisdiction over this case. See id. at 3-4 (crossing out the Basis for Jurisdiction section 

of the form). Richardson’s Complaint asserts no basis for jurisdiction whatsoever. Failure to assert 

a basis for jurisdiction is ground alone for dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

The Complaint also suffers from an infirmity related to sovereign immunity. “Absent a 

waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” JBP 

Acquisitions, LP v. U.S. ex rel. FDIC, 224 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting FDIC v. 

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). “The United States has waived its sovereign immunity in order 

to allow taxpayers to file actions seeking tax refunds” under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(1) and district 

courts have jurisdiction over such actions against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1346(a)(1). Mut. Assur., Inc. v. United States, 56 F.3d 1353, 1355 (11th Cir. 1995). However, 

prior to filing suit against the IRS, a taxpayer must first file “a claim for refund or credit” with the 

IRS. § 7422(a). Failure to file such an “administrative refund claim with the IRS in accordance 

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23645-BLOOM

3

with the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the 

maintenance of a tax refund suit.” Id. at 1356.

Richardson states that he “filed all necessary paperwork to obtain the allotted stimulus 

payments.” ECF No. [1] at 8. It is unclear what paperwork Richardson is referring to. Because 

Plaintiff has not alleged that he filed a refund claim, he has failed to meet the jurisdictional 

requirement of § 7422(a). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Richardson’s Complaint is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and all pending 

motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 15, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Jason Richardson

200128036

Miami-Dade County-PDC

Pretrial Detention Center

Inmate Mail/Parcels

1321 NW 13th Street

Miami, FL 33125

PRO SE

Case 1:22-cv-23645-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 3 of 3