Horta Suarez v. Internal Revenue Service

Background

Joel A. Horta Suarez, who was representing himself, filed what he called a petition for a court order requiring a federal officer or agency to act. The court treated the filing as a complaint and also interpreted it to assert constitutional damages claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a decision allowing certain constitutional claims against individual federal officers in limited circumstances. The respondents were the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Government.

Horta Suarez sought payment for what he alleged were improperly or illegally withheld taxes. His filings referred to various constitutional provisions, tax laws, regulations, and other authorities, and requested payment by electronic transfer, wire transfer, automated clearinghouse transfer, or check. He stated that the alleged value of withheld taxes was $250,000 per year from 2012 through 2019 and $500,000,000 for 2020. The court described the complaint and related filings as confusing and largely consisting of legal citations and conclusions.

Horta Suarez also filed motions concerning transfer, electronic filing, emergency treatment, clarification, sealed supplemental documents, and judgment on the pleadings. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, which triggered screening under the federal statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees.

Court’s Analysis

Failure to Meet the Pleading Standard

The court held that the complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires a short and plain statement of facts showing why the person filing the case is entitled to relief. The complaint must contain enough factual detail to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible.

The court found that Horta Suarez had not alleged sufficient facts explaining why his taxes were unlawfully withheld or otherwise providing a short and plain statement supporting relief. The court therefore could not identify a plausible claim from the complaint’s citations and conclusory assertions.

Mandamus Claim

Horta Suarez sought a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A writ of mandamus is a court order requiring a federal officer, employee, or agency to perform a clearly defined, nondiscretionary duty owed to the person seeking the order. The court found that Horta Suarez alleged no facts showing that a federal officer or agency had such a duty to him.

The court also explained that § 1361 does not give federal district courts authority to issue mandamus against the United States itself. The statute applies to federal officers, employees, or agencies, not the United States as a defendant by itself.

Possible Tax-Refund Claim

The court considered whether Horta Suarez might be trying to bring a tax-refund action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Such an action generally requires the taxpayer to have timely filed a refund or credit claim with the Internal Revenue Service and to allege that administrative remedies were exhausted. The court could not determine from the confusing complaint whether Horta Suarez had met those requirements. The complaint attached an unsigned and undated Form 1040-X that appeared to request, or to show a request for, a $250,000 refund, but the court could not determine whether the claim was timely or properly exhausted.

The court noted that Horta Suarez had brought a similar earlier case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:21-CV-22542 (RNS). That earlier case was dismissed for failure to state a claim after an amended complaint was filed. Because the claims in the present case were unclear, the court made no determination about whether a future amended complaint would be barred by claim-preclusion principles.

Constitutional Claims and Government Immunity

The court interpreted Horta Suarez’s allegations as asserting constitutional claims under Bivens. To state such a claim, he would need to allege facts plausibly showing that a federal officer acting under federal authority deprived him of a constitutional right.

The court held that the Bivens claims against the United States and the Internal Revenue Service were barred by sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing claims for money damages against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court also noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides only limited waivers and does not waive immunity for claims arising from the assessment or collection of taxes. The court therefore dismissed Horta Suarez’s Bivens claims under sovereign immunity.

Motions

Because the complaint failed to state a claim, the court denied Horta Suarez’s motions identified as ECF 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12 without prejudice to renewal at a later time. The order did not add a prejudice qualifier to the dismissal of the Bivens claims; it stated that those claims were dismissed under sovereign immunity.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Horta Suarez 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed him to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts, identify the people involved and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that no summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Horta Suarez failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Horta Suarez and record service on the docket.