Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-200 Erie
07-26-2019
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL TAX, FEDERAL TAX RETURN, Defendant
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] be GRANTED. The Clerk should be ordered to docket the Complaint.
It is further recommended that this action be dismissed as legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and that Plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to amend his complaint, consistent with the instructions herein.
II. REPORT
A. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff Matt L. Loper ("Plaintiff"), an inmate incarcerated at the Crawford County Correctional Facility, initiated this pro se civil rights action by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the filing fee associated with this case. Based upon this averment, it appears that Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
B. Assessment of Plaintiff's Complaint
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is "frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed. Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed. Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997). --------
In his proposed complaint, Plaintiff identifies the Defendant as "Federal Tax, Federal Tax Return." ECF No. 1-2 at 2. He lists the Defendant's occupation as "Income Tax Return" and the Defendant's address as "United States of America." The factual narrative accompanying the complaint states only the following:
Plaintiff is injured, and wronged.Id. at 4.
Plaintiff suffers harm, and serious emotional distress that impairs the person's abilities to reasonably function.
Plaintiff asks the Court to Order in favor of Judgement in the amount of $50,000 dollars for each year since Plaintiff was age 14 years old.
An individual's federal income tax return is not a proper defendant in a lawsuit. As such, this action, as presently pleaded, is frivolous and subject to summary dismissal.
That said, the limited factual allegations in the proposed complaint suggest that Plaintiff may be seeking a refund of federal income taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service. To the extent that this may be the case, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend his complaint. If he chooses to amend, Plaintiff should identify the party or entity that allegedly wronged him, state the federal statute or constitutional provision that he believes was violated, and provide a detailed factual narrative - including names and dates, where possible - explaining why he is entitled to relief. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed, with prejudice. III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED.
It is further recommended that this action be dismissed as legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and that Plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to amend his pleading to attempt to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).
/s/ Richard A. Lanzillo
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 26, 2019