Phillips v. Franchise Tax Board
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-07231
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Demetrius Phillips v. Franchise Tax Board, Judge Donato dismissed Phillips’s amended complaint with prejudice because it did not plausibly state a claim.
Demetrius Phillips, whose amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice and whose case was closed.
What happened
In Demetrius Phillips v. Franchise Tax Board, Phillips first sought an order temporarily blocking the defendants’ actions, but the court denied that request and dismissed his original complaint while allowing an amendment. The court said the original complaint was largely incomprehensible and did not plausibly state any claim, even when read generously because Phillips was representing himself.
Phillips’s amended complaint described him as a “Private Man, non-legal entity, non-resident” and challenged California vehicle-registration requirements. He argued that California could not regulate his noncommercial movement or enforce a fee or tax on his constitutional right to travel. The court said the amended complaint did not adequately state a recognizable claim and again named the Franchise Tax Board despite the court’s earlier explanation that sovereign immunity barred that claim.
Judge Donato dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be amended again in this case. The court ordered the case closed and said it would accept no further filings.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. Franchise Tax Board · No. 3:25-cv-07231
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 17, 2025
Background
The court previously denied Demetrius Phillips’s request for a temporary restraining order and dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend. The court had found that the original complaint consisted of largely incomprehensible statements that did not plausibly state any claim, even when read generously because Phillips was proceeding without a lawyer.
Amended Complaint
Phillips filed an amended complaint, but the court found that it did not improve the pleading. The amended complaint called Phillips a “Private Man, non-legal entity, non-resident” and referred to California vehicle-registration requirements. It asserted that California could not regulate the “free movement of non-commercial activities of Private Man” or enforce a fee or tax on a constitutional right to travel freely.
The court stated that although this language had “overtones” of interstate-travel rights, the amended complaint did not show that such rights were implicated or adequately state any other legally recognizable claim. The amended complaint also again named the Franchise Tax Board, despite the court’s earlier indication that sovereign immunity barred that claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which permits dismissal at any time of a complaint filed without paying the usual filing fee if it fails to state a claim for relief. The dismissal was with prejudice because Phillips had had ample opportunity to allege a plausible claim and had been given a clear explanation of the deficiencies he needed to correct. The court found that further amendment was not warranted and was highly unlikely to be productive.
Judge James Donato ordered the case closed and stated that no further filings would be accepted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.