Opinion
Case No. 04-6173-HO.
September 20, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, initiated this lawsuit by filing a document titled "Libel of Review — common law counterclaim in admiralty — Re: God-given unalienable rights in the original estate — Article III; Constitution." The clerk's office identifies this document as "complaint" on the electronic docket sheet. The document contains allegations, inter alia, that Vicki Schneider "has been making false claims," and "presented a bogus summons calling for Paul Monroe to appear as Paul M. Kurtz and disclose personal information . . ." The "Libel of Review" mentions the IRS and contains citations to the Internal Revenue Code and other sources of law. Defendant appears to assert in her papers that she is an employee of the Internal Revenue Service. Def's Memo. at 2-3. The "Libel of Review" further alleges, "[t]he recourse sought is immediate exclusive original cognizance of the United States through the district court. This case is repository for evidence for injunctive relief from any future presentments and theft or kidnap actions from any foreign agents or principals." Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, and plaintiff filed no response.
Defendant advances several grounds for dismissal; (1) the United States is the only proper defendant in a suit involving federal taxes; (2) plaintiff failed to properly serve the United States; (3) plaintiff failed to allege an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity; (4) injunctive relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act; (5) the Federal Tort Claims Act is inapplicable; Internal Revenue Service employees cannot be sued for actions taken related to tax collection; and (6) plaintiff is barred from seeking relief under the tax code for several reasons.
Claims for injunctions against the assessment of taxes are prohibited. Shannon v. United States, 521 F.2d 56, 58 (9th Cir. 1975). Liberally construing the "Libel of Review," the court is unable to discern a claim upon which relief may be granted. This case is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [#4] is granted. This action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.