Sorensen v. Bastian

Background

Charles Randall Sorensen, representing himself, alleged that Edward H. Bastian and the Delta F-Care Retirement Trust were taking money from his retirement account. Sorensen alleged that, beginning in November 2017, the Trust transferred portions of his retirement funds after receiving an Internal Revenue Service notice of levy. The notice stated that Sorensen owed more than $275,000 in unpaid taxes and directed the Trust to turn over non-exempt wages, salary, or other income in its possession.

Sorensen alleged that the levy notice was fraudulent and legally invalid. He sued Bastian and the Trust under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 664, which are federal criminal statutes. He requested damages, an injunction, attorney’s fees, and costs. He also filed a motion seeking an order requiring an Internal Revenue Service criminal-investigation unit to return property seized from his home, and a motion seeking default judgment against the defendants.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. They argued that Sorensen could not enforce the criminal statutes through a private lawsuit and, alternatively, that he had not plausibly alleged violations of those statutes. Sorensen argued that he had properly brought civil claims and had alleged sufficient facts.

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that §§ 241 and 664 create criminal prohibitions and penalties but do not authorize private parties to bring civil actions. The court therefore concluded that Sorensen’s claims under those statutes did not exist and could not provide a basis for relief.

The court also considered whether the amended complaint could be read to assert a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, even though Sorensen did not cite that law expressly. The court concluded that it did not matter whether such a claim had been raised because Sorensen had not alleged facts supporting it. In particular, his assertions that the levy notice was fraudulent and invalid were conclusory, and he did not allege nonconclusory facts showing that Bastian or the Trust had sent the notice or misappropriated his funds.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice. It explained that this allowed for the possibility of another action or amended pleading, although it warned that further pleading deficiencies could lead to dismissal with prejudice. The court noted that this was the first time the sufficiency of Sorensen’s pleadings had been litigated in this case and that the ambiguity about the claims and the lack of factual development made it not absolutely clear that amendment would be futile.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Sorensen’s motion for default judgment. The court stated that default judgment was inappropriate because the amended complaint did not sufficiently state a claim, without deciding whether the defendants’ response had been timely. The court denied as moot Sorensen’s motion seeking the return of property seized by the Internal Revenue Service because the action was being dismissed.

The order therefore provided: the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; Sorensen’s motion for default judgment was denied; Sorensen’s motion for a court order was denied as moot; and the action was dismissed without prejudice.