VEAL v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, C 11-04148 LB. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20120214d51
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge. On November 14, 2011, the court granted Defendant United States of America's 1 motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Paul Eugene Veal's complaint, which sought to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from attempting to collect taxes from Plaintiff for the years 2006-08. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18 at 3-4. The court granted Plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint w
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge. On November 14, 2011, the court granted Defendant United States of America's 1 motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Paul Eugene Veal's complaint, which sought to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from attempting to collect taxes from Plaintiff for the years 2006-08. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18 at 3-4. The court granted Plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint wi..
More
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
On November 14, 2011, the court granted Defendant United States of America's1 motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Paul Eugene Veal's complaint, which sought to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from attempting to collect taxes from Plaintiff for the years 2006-08. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18 at 3-4. The court granted Plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint within fourteen days if he could allege specific facts that would cure the deficiencies described in the order. Id. No amended complaint has been filed. The court interprets Plaintiff's inaction as expressing an intent not to proceed with the case. But, in an abundance of caution, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with the court's order. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff does not have to respond or show up to the currently scheduled case management conference if he does not intend to further pursue the claims raised in this suit. And, if Plaintiff does not respond by February 22, 2012, the case will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The government argues that Plaintiff improperly named the Internal Revenue Service as a defendant and that the United States of America should be substituted. Motion, ECF No. 11 at 1 n.1. The case law supports the government's contention that the proper party in this litigation is the United States. See Blackmare v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514-15 (1952).
Source: Leagle
