Taylor v. IRS ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONY TAYLOR, Case No. 1:22-cv-1246 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND 14 IRS, DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendant. (Docs. 5, 6) 16 17 Tony Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action 18 against the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service on September 29, 2022, asserting 19 that he has not received his economic impact payments. (Doc. 1.) 20 On February 27, 2023, the magistrate judge reviewed the complaint and found it appeared 21 the Court did not have jurisdiction. (Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to 22 amend and directed him to file an amended complaint no later than April 3, 2023. (Id. at 9-10.) 23 On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Dismiss and/or Appoint Counsel.” (Doc. 5.) 24 Plaintiff asserted he “is not suited to proceed” with the action and requested the Court either 25 appoint counsel or dismiss the action. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. 26 On April 11, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the action. (Doc. 6.) 27 In so recommending, the magistrate judge reiterated the finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction 28 over the allegations in the complaint. (Id. at 4-8.) The magistrate judge also observed that no 1 | more economic impact payments may be issued the CARES Act, which imposed a deadline of 2 | December 31, 2020. (Ud. at 9.) Finally, the magistrate judge found the circumstances of this case 3 | did not warrant appointment of counsel. (Jd. at 9-10.) 4 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on April 11, 2023, and 5 | informed Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 6 at 6 | 11.) Plaintiff was also advised “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 7 | the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 8 | 2014).) No objections have been filed and the deadline to so has passed. 9 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 10 | 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having 11 | carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 12 | supported by the record and proper analysis. Because the facts alleged are insufficient to invoke 13 || this Court’s jurisdiction, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice. See Hampton v. Pac. 14 | Inv. Memt. Co., 869 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2017) ([d]ismissals for lack of subject-matter 15 | jurisdiction ... must be without prejudice, because a lack of jurisdiction deprives the dismissing 16 || court of any power to adjudicate the merits of the case”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 11, 2023 (Doc. 6), are 18 ADOPTED. 19 2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 5) is DENIED. 20 3. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ May 2, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28