1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDWARD LEE ROUSE, Case No. 22-cv-01944-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a Texas state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 18 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 22 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 23 Pacifica Police Dep't,

(9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 25 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 26 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 27 is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) 1 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 2 to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 3 elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 4 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 6 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

. The United States Supreme 7 Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 8 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 9 allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 10 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff states that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has incorrectly stated that 14 he owes back taxes. 15 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right 16 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged 17 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 18 Atkins,

(1988). 19 Plaintiff argues that the IRS stated he owed $13,696 in back taxes for 2017 and 20 2018, but he has been incarcerated in Texas since 1989. He also alleges that someone 21 else has been using his social security number. For relief plaintiff seeks the court to 22 strike the tax debt. Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to § 1983 because he has not 23 alleged a right secured by the Constitution was violated. To the extent plaintiff could 24 proceed under a different cause of action, the complaint is dismissed because the claim 25 is “‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit’ or ‘frivolous.’” 26 Baker v. Carr,

(1962) (first quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. 27 Newburyport,

(1904); and then quoting Bell v. Hood,

, 1 cannot be litigated in this court. 2 CONCLUSION 3 The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 5, 2022 6 7 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27