09-3 839- cv

Michae lesc o v. Uni ted States UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to a summ ary order filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a d oc um en t f

il edwi thth is c ou r t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

an el ect r on ic da ta ba se (

wi thth e n ot at io n “ su m m ar y o r de r ”) . A p ar ty

ci ti ng a su m m ar

y o r de r must serve a copy of iton any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e 30 day of June, two th ousand ten. th Pres ent: R O GE R J. M I NER ,

J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges .

_________________________________ O RT ANS A M I CHAELES CO ,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt ,
v. No . 09 -3 839 -c v U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Defenda nt-App ellee , RI C HA R D S. H OEY I/O I NTERNAL REV ENUE O FC R ,

De fe ndant

.

_________________________________________2

FO R AP PE LL

ANT : Or tan s a Mich aele s co, pro se, Fa irf ie ld , C T. FOR APPELLEE: John A. DiCic co, Ac ting Assis tant Attorney General; Micha el J. Haungs and Ka thleen E . Lyon, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of J us ti ce, Wa s hi ngt on , D .C. Ap pe a l fr om aju dg me nt o f th e U ni te d S ta te s Di stri ct C ou rt fo r th e D ist ric t of

C on ne ctic ut (

Va ne ssa L. B ryant , Judge. ) UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DECREED th at the j ud gm ent of th e di s tr ict cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. Pl ain ti ff Or tan s a Mich aele s co, pro se, appea ls fr om the August 11, 2009 judgme nt of the Di s tr ict Cou r t gr ant

in g the m ot

io n o f the U ni te d S tat es filedun der Fe d. R. Civ . P . 12 (b)( 1) and(6 ) to di s mi s s her

com pl ain t an d d eny

in g pl ain ti ff

’s mo ti on s to ame ndher

com pl ain t an d t o tr ans fe r ven ue. Onapp eal, pl ain ti ff argue s th at ( 1) Of

fi cer Rich ar d F . H oey

of th e I nt er nal

Reven ue S er

vic e (“IRS”) should be reinstated as a named de fendant; (2) the colle ction ac tions were not authorized by cou r t o r der s ; ( 3) th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t e r r ed i n co ncl udin g that it lack ed j ur is di ct io n t o co ns id er

cer tai n matters that arose from bankrupt cy procee dings; (4) the District Court erred in concluding that res judi cat a app lie s to her

clai ms bec aus e s he r ais ed thembef or e the b ankr up tc y co ur t; (5 ) the I RS vio lat ed anaut om ati c s tay pu t i n p lace by the b ankr up tc y co ur t; (6 ) the D is tr ict Cou r t e r r ed i n con clu di ng that

pl ain ti ff ’s emo ti on al dis tr es s clai ms ar is in g f r omI RS co lle ct

io n act ivi ti es wer e barr ed by the F ede r al T or t Cl aim s Act ; ( 7) th e Di s tr ict Cou r t e r r ed b y de nyi ng h er mo ti onto ame ndher com pl ain t; (8 ) the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s di s mi s s al o f h er

com pl ain t d epr

ive d h er of her con s ti tu ti on al r igh ts ; ( 9) th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t e r r ed i n dis mi s s in g he r com pl ain t b ecau s e s he w as pr oce edi ng pro se ; a nd (1 0) the Di stri ctC ou rt e rre d i n d en yi ng he r mo ti on to t ra nsfe r ve nu e. W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa milia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e. We r evi ew de novo

a district court’s dismis sal of a complai nt purs uant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), construing the complaint liberall y, “‘a cce pting all fac tual all ega tions in the complaint as true, and dr awing all

r eas on abl e in fe r enc es inth e pl ain ti ff ’s fa vo r .’” Sho mo

v. Cit y o f N .Y. , 57 9 F .3d176 , 18 3 (2 d Ci r . 20 09) (quo ti ng Cha mb ers v . Time Wa rner, Inc. , 28 2 F .3d 147 , 15 2 (

2dCir . 20 02) ). We r evi ew a distr ict court’s denial of a motion for leave to a mend and a motion to tr ansfer venue for abuse of di s cr et io n. See Azurite Corp. v. Amster & Co. , 52 F.3d 15, 19 (2d C ir. 1995) (motion for leav e to ame ndcom pl ain t) ; N.Y. Marine a nd Gen . Ins. Co. v. Laf arge N. Am., Inc. , 599 F.3d 102, 11 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (motion to tr ansfer venue). Af te r an ex hau s ti

ve r evi ew o f the r eco r d, we f in d that th e Di s tr ict Cou r t p r op erly dis mi s s ed Michaele sco’s complaint for s ubstantially the same rea sons stated in the August 10, 2009 order of the Distr ict Court. We also conclude that the Distr ict Court did not abuse its discr etion by deny ing3

pl ain ti ff ’s mo ti on s fo r

leav e t o am endher

com pl ain t an d t o tr ans fe r ven ue. CONCLUSI ON We ha ve review ed allof Michaelesco’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore go in g re a son s, t he Au gu st 1 1, 20 09 ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

.

FOR THE C OU R

T: Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk