David v. Geithner
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Plaintiff Michael David is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than August 31, 2012, why the complaint should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 9, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
MICHAEL DAVID,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. C-12-3442 MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT;
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED
v.
TIMOTHY FRANZ GEITHNER, et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
Before the Court is plaintiff Michael David’s (“David”) complaint, titled “Libel of
18
Review,” filed July 2, 2012.1 Also before the Court is David’s filing of August 3, 2012, titled
19
“Default Judgment,” by which David requests entry of default judgment against defendant
20
Timothy Franz Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary Geithner”). Having read
21
and considered the above-referenced filings, the Court rules as follows.
22
David’s request for default judgment is hereby DENIED. First, David has failed to
23
show he served the summons and complaint upon Secretary Geithner in conformity with
24
the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)
25
(setting forth requirements for serving officer of United States). Second, even assuming
26
leaving a copy of the summons with a “mail clerk” in Secretary Geithner’s office on July 6,
27
2012 constituted sufficient service of process under Rule 4(i) (see Pl.’s Proof of Service,
28
1
The matter was reassigned to the undersigned on July 23, 2012.
1
filed August 3, 2012), Secretary Geither would not be required to file a response to the
2
complaint until sixty days after July 6, 2012, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2). Third, and finally,
3
entry of default judgment against an officer of the United States may be entered “only if the
4
claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court,” see Fed.
5
R. Civ. P. 55(d), and, here, David has offered no such evidence.
6
Moreover, the Court having reviewed the complaint, it appears David has failed to
7
state any cognizable claim against Secretary Geithner. In his complaint, David seeks a
8
finding that the Internal Revenue Service lacks the power to collect taxes it asserts David
9
owes. However, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any
10
tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the
11
person against whom such tax was assessed.” See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).2
12
Accordingly, David is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later
13
than August 31, 2012, why the instant complaint should not be dismissed. See Wong v.
14
Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding district court may dismiss complaint “on
15
its own initiative” after giving plaintiff opportunity to respond).
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: August 9, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Although statutory exceptions exist, see id., no such exception appears to apply to
claims made in David’s complaint. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 6331(i) (providing for right to file
action for “recovery” of specified type of tax “which was paid” by the plaintiff).
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
