(PS) Bevan v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02641
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RUSSELL BEVAN and HEIDI LEE, No. 2:24-cv-2641-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiffs Russell Bevan and Heidi Lee are proceeding pro se in this action, which was 17 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 18 On September 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 3. On 19 October 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Proof of Service,” but Defendants have not appeared in the 20 action. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and hereby sua sponte directs the Plaintiffs to 21 show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or lack of 22 subject matter jurisdiction. 23 I. The Complaint 24 The Complaint is styled as a “Cause of Action of Accounting.” ECF No. 3 at 1. It names 25 as Defendants: 1) the United States of America; 2) Department of Treasury; 3) Internal Revenue 26 Service (IRS); 4) Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Hubbert; and 5) IRS Agent John 27 Does 1-100. Id. at 1. The Complaint does not contain a jurisdictional statement, but string cites 28 several federal statutes without explanation. Id. at 4. 1 The factual allegations are nonsensical and frivolous. Plaintiffs contend they are 2 “nonperson,” “non-resident,” “non-fiction,” “Living flesh and blood man/woman standing on 3 ground.” ECF No. 3 at 6. Plaintiffs further state they are “representing the Corporate Fiction: 4 Heidi Renee Lee.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that this is a cause of action for accounting, which arises 5 where there is a fiduciary relationship. Id. Plaintiffs make the conclusory allegations that 6 Defendants operate on a presumption of liability, which is false, and Plaintiffs demand proof of 7 liability. Id. at 8. Plaintiffs contend that the IRS is not part of the Department of Treasury. Id. at 8 10. Plaintiffs contend they are not taxpayers as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Id. at 11. 9 Plaintiffs contend that in order to maintain integrity and independence an Article III judge who is 10 not a “taxpayer” must be designated to preside. Id. at 16. Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains a “relief 11 stated” paragraph, but it does not seek clear relief. Rather, it states in full:

12 Petitioner never received Notice of intent for the said 1040; Years 2023 as well as an itemized RBA [Restitution Based Assessment]. This alone would permit petitioner to 13 invoke Court’s jurisdiction. This Letter of Notice to intent to seize (levy) shall be null and 14 void NOT ONLY FOR JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, but noncompliance of the above requested being put on the record. 15 16 ECF No. 3 at 17. 17 Among the various documents attached to Plaintiffs complaints are what the Court can 18 only assume to be adulterated and fraudulently executed versions of IRS Form 56. IRS Form 56 19 is entitled “Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship,” which “is used to notify the IRS of the 20 creation or termination of a fiduciary relationship” under certain tax laws.1 Plaintiffs filed Form 21 56s that purport to make Janet Yellen, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and Francisco Alicea, 22 the former Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, the fiduciaries of “Heidi Renee Lee Trust. 23 ECF No. 3 at 29-32. The Form 56s contain the purported electronic signature of each official and 24 have been modified to include an “Actual & Constructive Legal Notice [U.C.C. §§ 1- 25 207(25)(26)(27)]” section that states, among other things, that each official has “been chosen to 26 act as fiduciary in re Heidi Renee Lee TRUST.” Id. 27 1 See Instructions for Form 56, available at Instructions for Form 56 (12/2024) | Internal 28 Revenue Service. 1 II. Analysis 2 A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea- 3 Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). A court may even do so “without notice 4 where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Id. A court must consider its subject matter 5 jurisdiction sua sponte. United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021). “A claim 6 invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 … may be dismissed for want of 7 subject matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is immaterial and made solely for the 8 purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Arbaugh v. Y&H 9 Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10 (2006) (citation and quotations omitted). The exact nature of 10 Plaintiff’s claims against the IRS are unclear, but to the extent they exist at all they may be within 11 the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court. See Danner v. United States, 208 F.Supp.2d 1166, 12 1170 (E.D. Wa. 2002) (“In general, the United States Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction to 13 determine the correctness of deficiency assessments made by the Commissioner of Internal 14 Revenue, and may raise or lower an assessment or determine there was no deficiency.”); see also 15 Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007) (holding Tax Court provides exclusive forum for 16 judicial review of claims of refusal to abate interest). Another potential hurdle for Plaintiffs’ 17 claims is sovereign immunity. See Gillings v. IRS, 138 F. App’x 990 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The 18 district court properly dismissed [Plaintiff’s] action for lack of jurisdiction because sovereign 19 immunity bars all suits against the federal government unless it expressly consents to be sued. 20 The IRS and its agents in their official capacities have not waived sovereign immunity, and thus 21 [Plaintiff’s] action is barred.”). 22 Plaintiffs’ claims appear to be wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Plaintiffs contend they 23 are non-citizen, non-taxpayer and non-fiction entities who are suing the United States and the IRS 24 for an accounting. As described above, Plaintiffs also filed apparently fraudulent and adulterated 25 forms purporting to make high-level government officials, including the U.S. Secretary of the 26 Treasury, “fiduciaries” for a trust in the name Plaintiff Lee. A cause of action for an accounting 27 generally “requires a showing that a relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant that 28 requires an accounting, and that some balance is due the plaintiff that can only be ascertained by 1 | an accounting.” Screen Capital Intern. Corp. v. Library Asset Acquisition Co., 510 B.R. 248, 260 2 | (C.D. Cal. 2014). Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a claim for an accounting. See Gomez v. 3 || World Savings Bank FSB, 2010 WL 5280004 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“The FAC does not plead the 4 | nature of the purported relationship between Plaintiff and each Defendant, rather, the FAC simply 5 || makes the conclusory statement that Defendants owe him an accounting.”). 6 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall show cause, in 7 | writing, within 14 days, why this case should not be dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction 8 | and/or for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal 9 || of this case. 10 | SOORDERED. 11 || DATED: January 16, 2025. md 12 / 4 13 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28