In the United States Court of Federal Claims
MARK PELLEGRINO as executor of MARK PELLEGRINO ESTATE,
Plaintiff, No. 25-918 v. Filed October 22, 2025
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Mark Pellegrino, Buffalo, NY, plaintiff, pro se. Joseph R. Longenecker, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER Granting the government’s motion to dismiss
Mark Pellegrino, proceeding without an attorney, filed a complaint in this court seeking
tax refunds for the “Mark Pellegrino Estate,” of which he claims to be the executor. He has filed
several motions, including a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to expedite his case, a
motion for default judgment, and a motion for an order to show cause. The government moves to
dismiss, arguing that Mr. Pellegrino cannot represent an estate pro se under rule 83.1 of the Rules
of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) and that his complaint does not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Without any basis for a refund claim, Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint fails to
state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. The court will dismiss his complaint and will
deny his motions to expedite, for default judgment, and for an order to show cause. The court will
grant Mr. Pellegrino’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
1 I. Background
Mr. Pellegrino filed suit in this court on behalf of the “Mark Pellegrino Estate,” seeking
tax refunds for millions of dollars for tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023. ECF No. 1 at 2. Although
an estate typically refers to the assets owned by an individual at the time of his death, Mr. Pelle-
grino states that he is a living person. ECF No. 24 at 2. Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint does not provide
information about the estate, how it earned income, or how it overpaid its taxes. See generally ECF
No. 1.
Mr. Pellegrino has provided the court with several documents along with his complaint.
For 2021, the estate filed a blank tax return. ECF No. 1 at 2-3; ECF No. 23-9 at 1-3. For 2022, the
estate listed over $5 million of “[o]ther income,” a taxable income of negative $5,000, and an
overpayment of over $5 million in taxes. ECF No. 24-2 at 6. For 2023, the estate again claimed
over $5 million of “[o]ther income” but reported the same over $5 million as an overpayment of
taxes. ECF No. 24-2 at 1. The forms do not reflect any purported withholding of income tax. ECF
No. 24-1 at 5, 9.
Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint alleges that the IRS mishandled the estate’s tax returns. ECF
No. 1 at 4; see ECF No. 24-5 (correspondence regarding the IRS’s alleged delays in handling Mr.
Pellegrino’s refund claims). Mr. Pellegrino states that he is “not a United States Citizen or a 14th
Amendment citizen” and states that he is a “Sovereign of the republic.” ECF No. 24-11 at 4-9. He
states that, because he is not an American citizen, he should be immune from taxation. ECF No.
24-12 at 45-46. Mr. Pellegrino requests that the court expedite his case (ECF No. 2), that the court
enter default judgment (ECF No. 28), and that the court issue an order to show cause (ECF No.
33).
2 The government moves to dismiss Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint, arguing that he fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and that he cannot represent his alleged estate pro se
under the rules of this court. ECF No. 21.
II. Discussion
This court’s rule 12(b)(6) ensures that the plaintiff has a claim for which this court can
grant appropriate relief. On a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept well-
pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the claimant’s favor. Lind-
say v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court need not accept the parties’
legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56). “A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when the
facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy, or do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of
plausibility.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (cit-
ing Lindsay, 295 F.3d at 1257, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). To avoid dismissal, a complaint
must “contain sufficient factual matter” to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘prob-
ability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlaw-
fully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 570).
This court has traditionally held the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff to a less stringent stand-
ard than those of a litigant represented by counsel. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)
(stating that pro se complaints “however inartfully pleaded are held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (marks omitted)). The court has therefore exercised its dis-
cretion in this case to examine the pleadings and record to see if the “plaintiff has a cause of action
somewhere displayed.” Ruderer v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 456, 468 (1969).
3 A. Mr. Pellegrino fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
To survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a tax refund complaint must contain sufficient
information about a taxpayer’s tax liability and tax payments to indicate that an overpayment oc-
curred. Williams v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 67, 75 (2013); Vernon-Theunder v. United States,
155 Fed. Cl. 152, 162 (2021) (“In a tax refund suit, a threshold requirement that a plaintiff must
demonstrate for recovery is overpayment of tax money to the IRS.”). Mr. Pellegrino does not pro-
vide any substantial information about his tax liability or payments to the IRS in his complaint or
any of his other filings. See supra; see generally ECF Nos. 1-4, 8, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33.
He does not provide any information about what the estate is, how it earned income, or how it
overpaid its taxes. Id. His tax forms note that he received over $5 million in income in two of the
last four years (ECF No. 24-2 at 1, 6) and paid no taxes, but he also states that he is homeless (ECF
No. 4 at 2). Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint and other filings do not contain enough information to state
a claim, under this court’s rules and cases and the Supreme Court’s standards.
Mr. Pellegrino seems to mainly allege that the IRS mishandled his refund claims and
caused processing delays. ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 12 at 2; ECF No. 24 at 6. This court does
not review the IRS’s process. See Ottawa Silica Co. v. United States, 699 F.2d 1124, 1138 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (“A ground for a refund that is neither specifically raised by a timely claim for a refund,
nor comprised within the general language of the claim, cannot be considered by a court in a sub-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
MARK PELLEGRINO as executor of MARK PELLEGRINO ESTATE,
Plaintiff, No. 25-918 v. Filed October 22, 2025
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Mark Pellegrino, Buffalo, NY, plaintiff, pro se. Joseph R. Longenecker, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER Granting the government’s motion to dismiss
Mark Pellegrino, proceeding without an attorney, filed a complaint in this court seeking
tax refunds for the “Mark Pellegrino Estate,” of which he claims to be the executor. He has filed
several motions, including a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to expedite his case, a
motion for default judgment, and a motion for an order to show cause. The government moves to
dismiss, arguing that Mr. Pellegrino cannot represent an estate pro se under rule 83.1 of the Rules
of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) and that his complaint does not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Without any basis for a refund claim, Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint fails to
state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. The court will dismiss his complaint and will
deny his motions to expedite, for default judgment, and for an order to show cause. The court will
grant Mr. Pellegrino’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
1 I. Background
Mr. Pellegrino filed suit in this court on behalf of the “Mark Pellegrino Estate,” seeking
tax refunds for millions of dollars for tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023. ECF No. 1 at 2. Although
an estate typically refers to the assets owned by an individual at the time of his death, Mr. Pelle-
grino states that he is a living person. ECF No. 24 at 2. Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint does not provide
information about the estate, how it earned income, or how it overpaid its taxes. See generally ECF
No. 1.
Mr. Pellegrino has provided the court with several documents along with his complaint.
For 2021, the estate filed a blank tax return. ECF No. 1 at 2-3; ECF No. 23-9 at 1-3. For 2022, the
estate listed over $5 million of “[o]ther income,” a taxable income of negative $5,000, and an
overpayment of over $5 million in taxes. ECF No. 24-2 at 6. For 2023, the estate again claimed
over $5 million of “[o]ther income” but reported the same over $5 million as an overpayment of
taxes. ECF No. 24-2 at 1. The forms do not reflect any purported withholding of income tax. ECF
No. 24-1 at 5, 9.
Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint alleges that the IRS mishandled the estate’s tax returns. ECF
No. 1 at 4; see ECF No. 24-5 (correspondence regarding the IRS’s alleged delays in handling Mr.
Pellegrino’s refund claims). Mr. Pellegrino states that he is “not a United States Citizen or a 14th
Amendment citizen” and states that he is a “Sovereign of the republic.” ECF No. 24-11 at 4-9. He
states that, because he is not an American citizen, he should be immune from taxation. ECF No.
24-12 at 45-46. Mr. Pellegrino requests that the court expedite his case (ECF No. 2), that the court
enter default judgment (ECF No. 28), and that the court issue an order to show cause (ECF No.
33).
2 The government moves to dismiss Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint, arguing that he fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and that he cannot represent his alleged estate pro se
under the rules of this court. ECF No. 21.
II. Discussion
This court’s rule 12(b)(6) ensures that the plaintiff has a claim for which this court can
grant appropriate relief. On a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept well-
pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the claimant’s favor. Lind-
say v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court need not accept the parties’
legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56). “A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when the
facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy, or do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of
plausibility.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (cit-
ing Lindsay, 295 F.3d at 1257, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). To avoid dismissal, a complaint
must “contain sufficient factual matter” to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘prob-
ability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlaw-
fully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 570).
This court has traditionally held the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff to a less stringent stand-
ard than those of a litigant represented by counsel. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)
(stating that pro se complaints “however inartfully pleaded are held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (marks omitted)). The court has therefore exercised its dis-
cretion in this case to examine the pleadings and record to see if the “plaintiff has a cause of action
somewhere displayed.” Ruderer v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 456, 468 (1969).
3 A. Mr. Pellegrino fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
To survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a tax refund complaint must contain sufficient
information about a taxpayer’s tax liability and tax payments to indicate that an overpayment oc-
curred. Williams v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 67, 75 (2013); Vernon-Theunder v. United States,
155 Fed. Cl. 152, 162 (2021) (“In a tax refund suit, a threshold requirement that a plaintiff must
demonstrate for recovery is overpayment of tax money to the IRS.”). Mr. Pellegrino does not pro-
vide any substantial information about his tax liability or payments to the IRS in his complaint or
any of his other filings. See supra; see generally ECF Nos. 1-4, 8, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33.
He does not provide any information about what the estate is, how it earned income, or how it
overpaid its taxes. Id. His tax forms note that he received over $5 million in income in two of the
last four years (ECF No. 24-2 at 1, 6) and paid no taxes, but he also states that he is homeless (ECF
No. 4 at 2). Mr. Pellegrino’s complaint and other filings do not contain enough information to state
a claim, under this court’s rules and cases and the Supreme Court’s standards.
Mr. Pellegrino seems to mainly allege that the IRS mishandled his refund claims and
caused processing delays. ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 12 at 2; ECF No. 24 at 6. This court does
not review the IRS’s process. See Ottawa Silica Co. v. United States, 699 F.2d 1124, 1138 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (“A ground for a refund that is neither specifically raised by a timely claim for a refund,
nor comprised within the general language of the claim, cannot be considered by a court in a sub-
sequent suit for a refund.”); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (A taxpayer is barred “from presenting claims in a tax refund suit that substantially vary
the legal theories and factual basis set forth in the tax refund claim presented to the IRS.” (quota-
tion marks omitted)). This court’s tax jurisdiction is generally limited to addressing tax overpay-
ments. Cox v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 213, 219 (2012); see 26 U.S.C. § 7422; 28 U.S.C. §
1346(a)(1). A suit alleging that the IRS failed to follow its own procedure falls into the category
4 of negligence or malfeasance, tort claims that are outside this court’s jurisdiction. Rick’s Mush-
room Service v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, the court cannot ad-
dress Mr. Pellegrino’s allegations about IRS delays or mishandling.1
B. Mr. Pellegrino cannot represent his estate pro se
Mr. Pellegrino also cannot represent the alleged estate in this litigation pro se. RCFC
83.1(a)(4) states that “persons who are not attorneys … may not represent a corporation, an entity,
or any other person in any proceeding before this court.” Mr. Pellegrino concedes that his com-
plaint is on behalf of an entity—an estate—not himself. ECF No. 24 at 1. An estate is a separate
legal entity from an individual and cannot be represented by a non-attorney. Carpio v. Office of
Personnel Management, 62 F.3d 1430, 1995 WL 412815, *1 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Ordinarily the court
would allow a plaintiff time to find an attorney in this sort of situation, but because Mr. Pellegrino’s
complaint fails to state a claim, finding an attorney would not revive his complaint on the merits.
C. Mr. Pellegrino may proceed in forma pauperis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant may move to proceed in forma pauperis, entitling him
to relief from the costs and fees associated with initiating a lawsuit. The court has discretion to
grant in forma pauperis status whenever it determines, based on the plaintiff’s submitted financial
information, that the plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. Brestle v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl.
95, 103 (2018); see also Colida v. Panasonic Corp. of North America, 374 F. App’x 37, 38 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). The threshold to establish the need to proceed in forma pauperis is not high. Fiebelkorn
v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335
U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). “[P]auper status does not require absolute destitution[;] the question is
1 The government alternatively requests that the court require Mr. Pellegrino to provide a more definite statement. ECF No. 21 at 8-9. Because the court will grant the government’s motion to dismiss, there is no need to address the alternative argument.
5 whether the court costs can be paid without undue hardship.” Chamberlain v. United States, 655
F. App’x 822, 825 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Pellegrino alleges that he is homeless. ECF No. 4 at 2. Mr. Pellegrino’s disclosed cir-
cumstances fall within the range that has warranted in forma pauperis status in other cases. See
Conner v. United States, No. 21-2057, 2022 WL 2231222 at *3 (Fed. Cl. June 21, 2022) (granting
in forma pauperis status to a plaintiff with negligible savings and a monthly income); see also U.S.
Court of Federal Claims Schedule of Fees, United States Court of Federal Claims (eff. Dec. 1,
2023), https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fee_schedule_20231201.pdf ($405.00
total filing fee). Mr. Pellegrino has demonstrated that paying the filing fee would cause undue
hardship.
D. The court will deny Mr. Pellegrino’s other motions
Mr. Pellegrino moves to expedite this case. ECF No. 2. Because the court decides the case
here, the motion to expedite is moot.
Mr. Pellegrino moves for default judgment. ECF No. 28. He argues that the government
has not responded to his discovery requests. The government’s response to the complaint was
timely, and Mr. Pellegrino’s requests for discovery were premature under the rules of this court.
Discovery ordinarily does not begin until after the court has decided the government’s motion to
dismiss and the government has filed an answer to the complaint. RCFC 12(a), 26; see Freeman
v. United States, 875 F.3d 623, 631 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because the government did not have to
respond to discovery requests yet, the court will deny Mr. Pellegrino’s motion for default judg-
ment. Mr. Pellegrino also moves for an order to show cause, arguing that he should be granted
summary judgment and that the government should be sanctioned because of the government’s
delay. ECF No. 33. For the reasons already discussed, that motion does not have merit, either based
on alleged delay at the IRS or alleged delay in this court. The court will deny it.
6 III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this court grants the government’s motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 21) and dismisses the case. The court also grants Mr. Pellegrino’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4).
The court denies Mr. Pellegrino’s motion to expedite (ECF No. 2) as moot. The court
denies Mr. Pellegrino’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 28). The court likewise denies Mr.
Pellegrino’s motion for an order to show cause (ECF No. 33). The clerk is directed to enter judg-
ment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Molly R. Silfen MOLLY R. SILFEN Judge