Phillips v. Franchise Tax Board

Background

Demetrius Phillips, who is representing himself, sued the California Franchise Tax Board and several of its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state-law theories. The dispute appears to concern a motor-vehicle fee or tax. Phillips also appeared to allege that he was not subject to California law because he was a “non-legal entity” and did not have a “legal relationship” with the state.

Phillips was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously denied his request for a temporary restraining order. The defendants filed two virtually identical motions to dismiss.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it would read a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint generously and resolve doubts in his favor. But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 still required Phillips to provide a short and plain statement of facts plausibly showing that he was entitled to relief.

The court concluded that the complaint did not meet that requirement. Even when read generously, it did not provide enough facts to explain what Phillips believed was wrong or why he might be entitled to relief. The court also said it could not discern a plausible claim from the complaint as it then stood. Statements Phillips made in his opposition to dismissal did not fix the complaint’s deficiencies because a court generally may not use new factual allegations in a motion paper to supplement the complaint.

Ruling and next steps

Judge James Ponato dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Phillips may file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025. The court advised him to address the Franchise Tax Board’s sovereign immunity, which generally protects a state or state entity from being sued in federal court without consent.

The court also reminded Phillips that he was proceeding without a lawyer and could not file documents written partly or entirely by an attorney who had not appeared in the case. The court warned that undisclosed attorney assistance could lead to revocation of Phillips’s fee-waiver status and sanctions, including dismissal of the case; the assisting attorney could also face professional-conduct sanctions up to disbarment. No new parties could be added without the court’s prior approval. The court vacated the November 13, 2025 hearing and stated that failure to meet the deadline or otherwise comply with the order would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).