Opinion
3:04-cv-494.
November 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, David Francis Fair (Fair), has filed a motion for determination of taxpayer status [Doc. 2]. Plaintiff asserts that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has no jurisdiction over him. Fair states, inter alia, that he is a sovereign natural born citizen of Pennsylvania "not a Territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends"; is domiciled in Tennessee and does "not reside or earn income or compensation for services in any Territory, Possession, Instrumentality or Enclave which is under the `sovereignty of' or `subject to the jurisdiction of' the United States"; and is not a citizen of the United States subject to its jurisdiction.
While this court would generally permit a fee-paying plaintiff to amend a complaint to cure any defects before dismissing the case sua sponte (See Tingler v. Mitchell, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th Cir. 1983)), there is no need to do so here, as Fair presents no arguably meritorious claim. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989) ("[the in forma pauperis statute] . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a `frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision"); Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) ("[W]e hold that district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee, . . .").
In its discretion, a court may dismiss a patently frivolous claim for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372 (1974) (commenting that federal courts lack power to hear cases otherwise within their jurisdiction but that are so attenuated, implausible, frivolous and unsubstantial as to be clearly devoid of merit); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773 (1946) (observing that dismissal for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction may result if the federal claim "clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or . . . is wholly insubstantial and frivolous").
Courts have defined frivolous claims to be those premised on clearly baseless factual allegations that describe fantastic or delusional scenarios, rising to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Not qualifying as frivolous are claims that are implausible, namely those that are doubtful or of questionable merit. Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518, 93 S.Ct. 854 (1973); Best, 39 F.3d at 330-31. However, claims that are not frivolous under Rule 12(b)(1) may nevertheless warrant dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See Baker v. Dir., United States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (suggesting that sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when the plaintiff "has not advanced a shred of a valid claim").
To the extent that Fair is seeking such, the court has no jurisdiction to enter any declaration to the effect that the IRS wrongfully determined the amount of taxes owed by Fair, see 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1992) or to enjoin the IRS from assessing or collecting taxes from Fair because he has not alleged any non-frivolous grounds for invoking any of the statutory or judiciallycreated exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Id. at 535. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is DENIED and this matter is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to the authority of Rule 12(b)(1).