Denham v. United States Government

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

COS O. DENHAM PLAINTIFF

vs. CAUSE No.: 3:24-CV-247-HTW-LGI

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING-IN-PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BEFORE THIS COURT is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac. ECF No. 4. This suit has not yet been served—Magistrate Judge Isaac sua sponte evaluated the sufficiency of the complaint while deciding Plaintiff Cos O. Denham’s motion for leave to proceed in form pauperis. Magistrate Judge Isaac recommends that this suit be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Denham failed to file a written objection within 14-days of this recommendation,1 which failure—as Magistrate Judge Isaac warned Denham—will “bar [Denham] from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by [this Court] …, except upon grounds of plain error.” ECF No. 4 at 7 (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)). Denham, pro se, brings this suit against Defendants “United States Government” and “Internal Revenue Service(s)” (“the IRS”). ECF No. 1 at 1. Denham claims that the IRS redirected

1 Approximately six weeks after Magistrate Judge Isaac entered her honor’s Report and Recommendation, Denham filed a document, styled as an “order of relief,” which merely recounted his claim and requested he be paid promptly so that he could have “this cash a week before [his] birthday” to help him pay for his supposed attendance of a police academy. ECF No. 5. Then, he requested “discovery.” ECF No. 6. Even if these documents were timely, they would not qualify as objections to the Report and Recommendation. $4,000 he was owed in economic impact (stimulus) payments (“EIPs”) to a state agency to pay towards Denham’s child support debt. Id. at 4. Denham argues that this was a “state debt,” and that the IRS’s actions comprised “misplaced payments which were not … to be taken.” Id. Denham claims the IRS “[n]eglected [a] duty of care.” Id. Denham also seeks $6,000 “to make

up for the 4 years of missing payments.” Id. Denham pleads that his claim travels under 19 U.S.C. § 1592, the No Fear Act, Respondeat Superior, 5 U.S.C. 2302, and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act. Id. at 3. As Magistrate Judge Isaac correctly notes, each of these statutes and doctrines is clearly inapplicable to Denham’s claims and/or fails to provide Denham a private right of action. See ECF No. 4 at 4–5. Magistrate Judge Isaac opines that this deficiency not only renders Denham’s claims inactionable, but that it dooms this Court’s exercise of federal subject-matter jurisdiction because Denham’s claim would not “fall under either of [his cited Federal] statutes, even if the facts were more thoroughly pled.” Id. at 3. Denham also invokes the language of negligence (a common-law cause of action), based on his references to “misplaced payments” and “[n]eglected duty of care,” ECF No. 1 at 4; but, as

Magistrate Judge Isaac aptly notes, Denham cannot avail himself of this Court’s diversity jurisdiction2, at least because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, ECF No. 4 at 3. Because a “pro se complaint is to be construed liberally,” this Court considers the factual thrust of Denham’s claims to see if a matter of proper jurisdiction lies therein. Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Denham acknowledges that his putative EIPs

2 “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1) citizens of different States ….” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). would be treated as tax refunds. ECF No. 1 at 4.3 Statute, thus, requires “that the IRS reduce any refund to a taxpayer ‘by the amount of any past-due [child] support,’” and this “offset happens automatically where a state has registered a debt with the Treasury Offset Program.” Weddington v. IRS, No. CV SAG-23-2338, 2024 WL 3618669, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2024) (quoting 26 U.S.C.

§ 6402(c) and citing Sorenson v. Sec’y of Treas. of U.S., 475 U.S. 851, 856–57 (1986)). An aggrieved “taxpayer must dispute any such registered debt with the holder of the debt, not with the United States.” Id. By statute, this Court has no “jurisdiction to hear any action, whether legal or equitable, brought to restrain or review [such] a reduction,” and no action “brought against the United States to recover the amount of any such reduction shall be considered to be a suit for refund of tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g).4 This Court, thus, agrees with Magistrate Judge Isaac that this Court lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Denham’s suit.5 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Isaac’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED-IN-PART. This matter is DISMISSED, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE (because this Court lacks the power to adjudicate and dismiss a claim on its merits over which it

lacks jurisdiction). This Court separately will set out its Final Judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 12th day of August , 2025.

/s/HENRY T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3 See also Bandy v. Sec’y, United States Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 23-4039, 2024 WL 5278790, at *2 (6th Cir. July 17, 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Bandy v. Bessent, No. 24-6502, 2025 WL 951193 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2025). 4 See also Taylor v. United States, 292 F. App’x 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he United States cannot be sued unless its sovereign immunity has been explicitly and unequivocally waived through Congressional statute”). 5 See, e.g., Weddington, 2024 WL 3618669, at *2; Brandy, 2024 WL 5278790, at *2; Prance v. United States, No. 22-1905, 2023 WL 6799101, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 13, 2023); Conklin v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, No. 1:21-CV-00137-SPB, 2022 WL 2835708, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2834250 (W.D. Pa. July 20, 2022).