(PC) Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01099-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 13 v. EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano, a state prisoner, filed this civil 18 action against Defendant Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff proceeds pro 19 se and his application to proceed in forma pauperis remains pending. (ECF No. 2.) As it 20 appears that this action should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United States 21 District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Court will transfer the case to the 22 Sacramento Division. 23 Plaintiff, who is currently housed at the California State Prison, Sacramento in Represa, 24 California, brings this action seeking reissuance of a purported refund check from the IRS in the 25 amount of $43,000,000.34, along with interest. Plaintiff claims that the California Substance 26 Abuse Treatment Facility Trust Office (“SATF Trust Office”) failed to forward him the check.1 27 1 Plaintiff has requested joinder of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (ECF No. 28 1 at pp. 9-11.). 1 However, according to documents attached to the complaint, the SATF Trust Office informed 2 Plaintiff that the check in the amount of $4,300.88 from the US Treasury had been returned to 3 sender because the “Internal Revenue Service . . . requested this check be returned to them.” 4 (ECF No. 1 at p. 18, Ex. A.) Plaintiff also brings a claim under the Freedom of Information Act 5 (“FOIA”), indicating that he made a request to the IRS to examine the refund check. 6 For purposes of a tax refund, the proper venue for such a claim is the judicial district in 7 which the plaintiff resides. See Hanson v. I.R.S., No. CIV. 91-1304-FR, 1991 WL 57014, at *1 8 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 1991) (“Under the express provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(1), the proper 9 venue for a claim for a federal tax refund lies only in the judicial district in which the plaintiffs 10 reside.”). Regarding venue in FOIA cases, one court has noted as follows: 11 FOIA contains a specific provision for venue, which allows for venue in four locations: (1) the judicial district where the plaintiff resides, (2) the judicial district 12 where the plaintiff has a principal place of business, (3) the judicial district where the agency records are situated, or (4) the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. § 13 552(a)(4)(B). 14 Koltys v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-08700-SK, 2022 WL 423441, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022). 15 The only apparent basis for venue in the complaint is Plaintiff’s residence. Specifically, Plaintiff 16 is confined at California State Prison, Sacramento. 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 18 court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action 19 will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. Given the transfer, the Court will not address 20 Plaintiff’s pending application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court also will 21 not address the separate request for joinder. 22 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 24 California sitting in Sacramento; and 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 2 filed at: 3 United States District Court 4 Eastern District of California 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 5 Sacramento, CA 95814 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: July 25, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28