Taylor v. IRS

Opinion

TONY TAYLOR, Case No. 1:22-cv-1246 JLT SAB

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