Opinion
No. C-04-3141 EDL.
August 27, 2004
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 3, 2004, Plaintiff Gil R. Francis ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking a written mandate against Congress. Plaintiff's Complaint is hand-written, only barely legible, and appears to state:
Application for a Writ of Mandate pursuant to US Voters Constitution and Title 28 of US Voters Codes and laws Section 1651.
I
See F.B.I. documents concerning same. Also, I.R.S.
II
US Voters have been short-changed $16.25 per $100 in our exchanges with Commerce which we regulate. As is evidenced by the $18.75 per $100.00.
III
US Voter Constitution Mandates all impost, excise, duties or taxes be uniform.
IV
The 25¢ per dollar deficit arises from US Voters Constitution Article V 25 out of hundred is again the 75 or more of U.S. Uniform Tax deficit is 25%. Thus the $25.00 per $100.
VI
Order Congress to remit $16.25 per $100 collected July 2003 thru July 1, 2004 Court and have the court distribute to the states governors to provide for US Voters general welfare (Health, Education Defense HED) which Congress Must do.
Complaint.
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend.
II. DISCUSSION
A. In Forma Pauperis Application 28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes the Court to permit an individual to file an action in federal court without prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The person seeking in forma pauperis ("IFP") must submit an affidavit including a statement of all assets and a statement that she is unable to pay. Id.. The person must also state the nature of the action and her belief that she is entitled to redress. Id.
Plaintiff's IFP application indicates that he is unemployed and his only income is from government welfare payments; he has neither cash nor bank accounts; does not own a car or a home; and does not have any debts. Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to pay the filing fee and that he believes he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff has met the requirements for a proper IFP application.
B. Dismissal of Complaint Pursuant to Section 1915(e)
Section 1915 requires the Court to dismiss the case if the claim of poverty is untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or the defendant seeks monetary relief from a defendant with immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A court should grant leave to amend unless the pleading could not possibly be cured. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The only possible claim that the Court can discern would be under the Uniformity Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 1. All direct taxes are apportioned among the states by population, but all indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity. U.S. Const. Art. I § 9 cl. 4. The purpose of the Uniformity Clause is to prevent the federal government from favoring or disfavoring any particular state. United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74, 80-81 (1983). The Uniformity Clause "does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, a `tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.'" Id. at 82 (citation omitted). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Congress has "short-changed" the "US Voters." Plaintiff, however, does not allege that Congress imposed an indirect tax that fails to have uniform force and effect in every state. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and could not be amended to state a valid claim.
III. CONCLUSION
It Is Hereby Ordered that:
1. Plaintiff's IFP application is denied; and
2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e), without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.