1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT G. YAHNE, No. 2:24-cv-02813 DJC AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA;

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

15 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE;

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

16 GENERAL D/B/A DAVAD A. HUBERT; and CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX 17 BOARD, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On October 15, 2024, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 21 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). The 22 undersigned has reviewed the complaint and believes that this court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s case, and that this case must be dismissed with prejudice. 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 25 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal 26 courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, 27 and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 28 citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). Further, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 1 frivolous cases. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) 2 (holding federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so 3 insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely 4 devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 5 (1974) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially fictitious,” 6 “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”); Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through 7 Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549–50 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that the “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” 8 standard for dismissing claims operates under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of federal question 9 jurisdiction). 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Thus, a court may dismiss a claim as frivolous 12 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 13 “clearly baseless,” a category encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and 14 “delusional”). Id. at 327; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (discussing 15 Neitzke, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level 16 of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts 17 available to contradict them”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “[T]he frivolousness determination is a 18 discretionary one” for the court. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 19 Here, plaintiff alleges that he is a “NON-PARTICIPANT in any Government programs, a 20 Living flesh and blood man standing on the ground.” ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff brings a cause of 21 action for an accounting. Id at 7-8. Though the complaint is difficult to decipher, the thrust of 22 plaintiff’s allegations is that the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Government in general do 23 not have jurisdiction over plaintiff, and therefore cannot tax plaintiff or his property. Id. at 11- 24 12. Plaintiff asserts that the IRS is not an organization within the U.S. Department of the 25 Treasury, and even if it was, the undue influence of the Executive Branch violates the principal of 26 separation of powers. Id. at 12. Plaintiff states “I do hereby declare that I am not and I never was 27 a ‘taxpayer’ as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code, a ‘person liable’ for any 28 Internal Revenue Tax, or a ‘person’ subject to the provisions of that Code, and declare that I am, 1 and have always been, a ‘non-taxpayer;’ that courts have recognized and acknowledge that 2 individuals can be non-taxpayer[.]” Id. at 13. 3 While plaintiff does not expressly state that he is a “sovereign citizen,” the court finds 4 plaintiff’s allegations, verbiage, explanations, and exhibits are all demonstrative of the fact that 5 plaintiff’s claims are entirely rooted in sovereign citizen ideology. “While many various sub- 6 groups and ideologies may fall under the sovereign-citizen umbrella, the overarching unifying 7 principle is the belief that, even though they physically reside in this country, the state and federal 8 governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their 9 behavior.” Caetano v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:22-cv-00837-JLT-SAB, 2023 WL 3319158, 10 at *2, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81020 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2023), report and recommendation 11 adopted, No. 1:22-cv-00837-JLT-SAB, 2023 WL 4087634 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023). 12 The “Redemptionist” theory is another frivolous legal theory that has been rejected by 13 countless federal courts. See, e.g., U.S. v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 761–67 (7th Cir. 2011) 14 (discussing sovereign citizen arguments as “frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible,” having no 15 validity in country's legal system and recommending that they be “rejected summarily, however 16 they are presented” and regardless of the individual’s claimed status of descent, “be it as a 17 ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being’”) (collecting 18 cases); Trevino v. Florida, 687 Fed. App’x 861, 862 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (affirming 19 district court’s sua sponte dismissal of complaint as frivolous under § 1915A, and finding 20 plaintiff’s sovereign citizen arguments frivolous, “[Plaintiff’s] factual allegations that he is a party 21 to some sort of secured transaction requiring Florida to release him are clearly baseless.”); 22 Vazquez v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, No. 2:15-cv-756, 2016 WL 232332, at *2–3, 2016 U.S. Dist. 23 LEXIS 6722 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2016) (finding plaintiff’s “secured party creditor” theory to be 24 “clearly frivolous,” warranting dismissal of § 1983 complaint without leave to amend); see also, 25 U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (commenting that “advancement of such 26 utterly meritless [sovereign citizen] arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on 27 civil litigants who raise them.”). Consequently, the court believes that plaintiff’s claims are based 28 on a frivolous legal theory must be dismissed. ] Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in 2 || writing, no later than November 6, 2024, why this court has subject matter jurisdiction over his 3 || case. If plaintiff fails to respond by November 6, 2024, the court will recommend dismissal of his 4 || case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 || DATED: October 16, 2024 ~ 6 Htttenr— Lhor—e_

ALLISON CLAIRE

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28