United States v. Bryan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 United States of America, No. 2:22-cv-01962-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Mark Linn Bryan, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The United States brings this action to enforce a federal tax lien against pro se defendant 18 | Mark Linn Bryan and other defendants. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Instead of filing a 19 | responsive pleading under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 8, Mr. Bryan submitted a 20 | document titled “Conditional Acceptance of Summons in a Civil Case No. 2:22-CV-01962-AC,” 21 | which the court refers to as his “conditional acceptance” for convenience—without 22 | acknowledging he has “accepted” anything. See Conditional Acceptance at 1, ECF No. 14. The 23 | government responded by characterizing the filing as a motion for a more definite statement 24 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and urging the court to deny the motion. See U.S. 25 | Resp. at 2, ECF No. 29. As explained in the first section below, the court liberally construes the 26 | filing as a motion for a more definite statement and denies the motion. 27 Mr. Bryan has filed many other documents beyond his purported conditional acceptance. 28 | As explained in the second section below, these other filings are stricken. 1 I. MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 2 The United States seeks to foreclose its tax liens against property owned by Mr. Bryan. 3 Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8. The government avers Mr. Bryan did not file tax returns or otherwise pay federal 4 taxes between 2013 and 2017, amounting to over $300,000. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. Although the United 5 States informed Mr. Bryan of the assessments, he has not fully paid them. Id. ¶¶ 19–21. The 6 government brings this action to reduce the federal tax assessments to judgment and foreclose 7 those liens against the subject property. Id. at 5. 8 Mr. Bryan was served on December 12, 2022, see ECF No. 25, but he has not filed a 9 responsive pleading. He has instead filed a series of documents with no apparent basis in the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF Nos. 14, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43 & 44. 11 In the first of these, the “conditional acceptance,” Mr. Bryan states he “do[es] not 12 understand [the complaint’s] demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them.” Conditional 13 Acceptance at 2. He therefore “seek[s] verification and clarification” of the summons. Id. 14 On the one hand, this first document purports to require the government to respond to a 15 series of irrelevant questions. See, e.g., id. at 4 (“Do we agree that the U.S. Department of 16 Justice . . . and the Plaintiff . . . are private for profit corporations? If no answer is provided the 17 answer is yes.”). In that way, it does not resemble any of the motions permitted by Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 12. On the other hand, setting these questions aside, Mr. Bryan’s statement 19 that he does not understand the complaint and summons does resemble a motion for a more 20 definite statement under Rule 12(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (“A party may move for a more 21 definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague 22 or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”). Mr. Bryan is appearing pro 23 se, so the court liberally construes this statement as a Rule 12(e) motion. See Erickson v. Pardus, 24 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). 25 Rule 12(e) “is designed to strike at unintelligibility, rather than want of detail.” Bernhard 26 v. City of Tracy, No. 20-2353, 2021 WL 2439667, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2021) (citation 27 omitted). A motion under this rule “must identify defects and specify the details desired.” 28 Comm. for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma Cty. v. Cty of Sonoma, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1191 (N.D. 1 Cal. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)). It “should be denied if a pleading meets federal 2 standards by providing a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader may be 3 entitled to relief.” Lexington Ins. Co. v. Energetic Lath & Plastic, Inc., No. 15-0861, 2016 WL 4 829311, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 5 The government’s complaint meets federal pleading standards. It identifies the factual 6 and legal bases for its claims, including dates and amounts for federal income tax liability 7 assessments between 2013 and 2017, see Compl. ¶¶ 17–18, and the two claims for relief, see id. 8 ¶¶ 24–29. Moreover, the court finds no apparent ambiguity or vagueness in the complaint, and 9 Mr. Bryan points to none. The motion is therefore denied. Mr. Bryan must file a responsive 10 pleading within fourteen days. 11 II. OTHER FILINGS 12 Mr. Bryan’s other filings are nonsensical, frivolous, or both. See ECF Nos. 32, 34, 35, 38, 13 41, 43 & 44. District courts have inherent authority to control their dockets. Chambers v. 14 NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). This authority includes “strik[ing] items from the 15 docket . . . .” Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (collecting 16 cases). For example, courts often strike material “reflecting procedural impropriety or lack of 17 compliance with court rules or orders.” Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 08-3971, 2010 18 WL 4055928, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010) (collecting cases). 19 Whether this court construes Mr. Bryan’s serial filings as unauthorized supplemental 20 briefs or part of a broader strategy to promote “frivolous tax-defier arguments,” see U.S. Resp. at 21 4, these filings have no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the relevant claims and 22 defenses in this case. The filings thus reflect a disregard for procedural propriety. Moreover, the 23 cluttered docket they are creating is confusing. For example, Mr. Bryan filed a “Request for 24 Settlement,” which does not contain such a request, and instead purports to have resolved this 25 case by directing the Department of Justice and this court’s clerk “to settle and discharge . . . all 26 liens” associated with the matter using an alleged $1.75 billion fund. Request for Settlement at 1, 27 3, ECF No. 43. Similarly, in a document titled “Answer,” Mr. Bryan does not respond to the 28 complaint, but instead purports to bind the United States to various admissions by omission 1 following the presentation of the Conditional Acceptance’s question list. See Answer, ECF No. 2 32. The court therefore strikes ECF Nos. 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43 & 44. 3 In addition, the court warns Mr. Bryan it will not tolerate serial, meritless filings aimed at 4 delaying this case. “California’s vexatious litigant statute, incorporated as a procedural rule by 5 Eastern District Local Rule 151(b), specifically defines scenarios in which a court may deem a 6 litigant vexatious.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, No. 13-0007, 2018 WL 1576036, at *1 (E.D. 7 Cal. Mar. 30, 2018), aff’d, 2022 WL 1046251 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022) (Mem.) (unpub.). For 8 example, a court may deem litigants vexatious if they file serial meritless motions and employ 9 tactics designed to cause delay. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391(b)(3); see also Yeager, 2018 WL 10 1576036, at *3 (finding party a vexatious litigant due to “repeated” and “unmeritorious” filings, 11 causing “unnecessary delay”). This status may result in pre-filing restrictions. See AT&T 12 Mobility LLC v. Yeager, No. 13-0007, 2018 WL 5263026 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2018) (imposing 13 pre-filing restrictions on vexatious litigant). 14 Mr. Bryan’s future filings must comply with all applicable laws and rules, as well as 15 Rule 11. He must not present filings “for any improper purpose,” for example, and his filings 16 must have a basis in law and fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Any failures to comply with Rule 17 11 may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions or default judgment. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 The court construes ECF No. 14 as a motion for a more definite statement and denies the 20 motion. Mr. Bryan must file a responsive pleading to the complaint within fourteen days. The 21 court also strikes Mr. Bryan’s numerous other filings. Lastly, the court cautions Mr. Bryan 22 against serial, meritless filings designed to delay this case if he wishes to avoid possible 23 sanctions. 24 The motion hearing set for March 10, 2023, is vacated. 25 This order resolves ECF Nos. 14, 29, and strikes ECF Nos. 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43 & 44. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: February 21, 2023.