Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Martin v. Olson, 3:17-cv-00474-RCJ-VPC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180523g27 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 22, 2018
Latest Update: May 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Plaintiff Scott Martin filed this pro se Petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, to respond to various inquiries. He demanded that she investigate certain "procedural irregularities" by employees of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and report her findings to him. Plaintiff disclaimed any desire for a taxpayer assistance order. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Scott Martin filed this pro se Petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, to respond to various inquiries. He demanded that she investigate certain "procedural irregularities" by employees of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and report her findings to him. Plaintiff disclaimed any desire for a taxpayer assistance order. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff appealed. He also filed two motions to amend in this Court, seeking to join the Commissioner of the IRS as a defendant. The Court denied the motions because Plaintiff could not amend adjudicated claims, and the Court would not reconsider dismissal, because Plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged mandamus jurisdiction over the Commissioner.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to order the IRS to cease publication of IRS Publication No. 1 ("Taxpayer Bill of Rights") because it is "materially false, fictitious, [and] fraudulent." Because no claims remain, however, Plaintiff necessarily cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, even if the motion pertained to a claim he previously brought, which it does not.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer