Hughes v. Elam
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-00562 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 2023 |
| Parties | CHARLES HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN ELAM, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Hughes alleges that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue Officer Justin Elam violated his rights when Elam corresponded with Hughes concerning Hughes's unpaid federal taxes. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Elam has moved to dismiss the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 3.) Hughes responded in opposition to Elam's motion (Doc. Nos. 18, 19), and Elam has filed a reply (Doc. No. 26). For the reasons that follow the Magistrate Judge will recommend that Elam's motion to dismiss be granted.
The body of Hughes's pro se complaint states in its entirety:
To: all mankind I say on the record and will testify in open court. I charles: hughes do not have a contract with IRS, and I charles: hughes do not have a contract through my dba CHARLES HUGHES with the man dba IRS the corporation. Any man that prove true and correct confirmation otherwise should come forward now and make their claim or forever hold their peace.
(Doc. No. 1-1, PageID# 7.)
To this statement, Hughes has attached correspondence from Elam to Hughes, annotated by Hughes, concerning the IRS's attempts to obtain unfiled tax returns and collect unpaid taxes from him. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Hughes includes an IRS form W-8BEN certificate of foreign status in which he states that his country of citizenship is “Heaven.” (Id. at PageID# 10.) He also includes what appears to be an answer to Elam's correspondence in which he asks Elam to provide information in response to specific words and statements made in Elam's letters and “decline[s]” the “offer[s]” made by Elam. (Id. at PagelD# 26-29.) Hughes concludes this document with the statement:
Based on this unverified claims of debts owed this offer remains declined until proven by verification of all items listed for correction and return, failure to comply will initiate a default issued by way of a foreign judgment issued under Administrative Procedures Act and Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, with full faith and credit of the United States of America. In addition to the Title violations that are evident by the words and claims made there is also trademark infringement for every use of the name CHARLES HUGHES a charge of 100.000. 00 dollars issues for unauthorized use of that name. Invoice for the violations and trademark and false claims are listed below.
(Id. at PageID# 29.)
Hughes includes an invoice addressed to Elam for four counts of “[t]rademark infringement” at $100,000.00 each and eight counts of “[c]ivil liability” at $1,000.00 each, for a total amount owed of $408.000.00. (Id. at PageID# 32.)
Hughes also includes a document titled “affidavit” which states that (Id. at PageID# 8.)
Hughes initiated this action on March 23, 2022, by filing a pro se complaint against Elam in the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Elam removed the action to this Court on July 28, 2022 (Doc. No. 1), and filed a motion to dismiss Hughes's claims against him (Doc. No. 3). Elam argues that Hughes's claims should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because sovereign immunity bars Hughes's claims and Hughes otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id.) Elam further argues that the proper defendant to Hughes's claims is the United States, not Elam. (Id.)
The Court ordered Elam to submit an amended notice addressing the timeliness of removal. (Doc. No. 4.) Elam responded by filing a memorandum in support of removal arguing that the 30-day period for removal had not yet started to run because Hughes had not effectively served Elam. (Doc. No. 8.) Elam argues that Hughes did not properly serve him under state law because Hughes attempted to serve Elam by mail but did not obtain the signature of a person authorized by Tennessee law to accept service on Elam's behalf. (Id.) Elam also argues that Hughes did not properly serve him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which governs service of process on the United States and employees of the United States. (Id.) Based on this amended notice, the Court found that Elam had adequately established the timeliness of removal and referred the action to the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 10.) The Court warned Hughes that he was “responsible for effecting service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4” and that “[f]ailure to complete service of process may result in dismissal of [Hughes's] claims.” (Id. at PageID# 116.)
After the action was referred, the Court ordered Hughes to show cause why his case should not be dismissed because he had not responded in opposition to Elam's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 11.) Hughes did not file anything in response to the show-cause order. However, Elam notified the Court that Hughes had sent him a one-page document that he believed was intended to be a response. (Doc. No. 12.) The Court again directed Hughes that he must respond to Elam's motion if he intended to prosecute his claims. (Doc. No. 13.) The Court ordered Hughes to file any response by November 4, 2022. (Id.) Elam notified the Court again that Hughes had mailed him what appeared to be a response to the Court's order. (Doc. No. 14.) The Court granted Hughes a short extension of time to respond to Elam's motion and warned Hughes that the Court would only consider filings made in the Court's docket. (Doc. No. 15.)
Hughes then filed a “notice of finding of facts due to fraud on the court” (Doc. No. 18) and a “notice to schedule time for notice of finding of facts” (Doc. No. 19). The Court construed these filings as Hughes's response and supplemental response in opposition to Elam's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 24.) In these filings, Hughes argues that he served Elam in accordance with Tennessee law but was unable to file a return receipt because the return receipt was intentionally altered by a USPS staff person. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) In support of this argument, Hughes filed a certified mail receipt showing that, on March 23, 2022, Hughes sent an envelope with return receipt requested to “Justin W. Elam[,] 801 Broadway Stop 49[,] Nashville, Tennessee 37203-3816[.]” (Doc. No. 19 at PageID# 216.) Hughes provided a screenshot of a USPS webpage showing tracking information for that mailing which shows an image of the signature of Regina Muse with the partial address “801 Broadwa[y]” below. (Id. at PageID# 218.) Hughes also included other screenshots of USPS tracking information. (Id. at PageID# 213, 217.) Finally, Hughes filed a Williamson County Circuit Court proof of service affidavit signed by Hughes stating that he served a copy of the summons and complaint on Elam by mail on March 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 19.) The section of the affidavit for return of service by mail is blank. (Id.)
In his responsive filings, Hughes also appears to extend his claims to allege that Elam's counsel, Larry S. Schifano, violated trademark law by using Hughes's name, committed mail fraud, and obstructed justice.[2] (Doc. No. 18.) Hughes attached an invoice addressed to Schifano documenting three counts of trademark infringement, two counts of “civil liability,” and violations of “Title 18 1341” and “Title 18 1503,” totaling $802,000.00. (Id. at PageID# 194.) Hughes also attached a document showing that a business titled CHARLES HUGHES had been registered under Minnesota law with the principal place of business at Hughes's residential address. (Doc. No. 18.)
Elam replied, arguing that Hughes has not shown that he perfected service under federal or state law, that Hughes's filings are unintelligible, and that Hughes had not properly asserted claims against Schifano. (Doc. No. 26.) Hughes filed a response that the Court construes as a sur-reply, arguing that Elam's motion to dismiss should be terminated due to fraud on the Court by Elam's attorneys. (Doc. No. 34.)
“[T]he requirement of proper service of process ‘is not some mindless technicality[,]'” Friedman v. Est. of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151, 1156 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 1987)), nor is it “meant to be a game or obstacle course for plaintiffs[,]” Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Meadowlands Dev. Ltd. P'ship, 140 F.Supp.3d 450, 455 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Rather, it goes to the very heart of a court's ability to hear a case. “[W]ithout proper service of process, consent, waiver, or forfeiture, a court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a named defendant.” King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650, 655 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (). Where personal jurisdiction is not properly established, a court cannot exercise its authority consistent with due process of law. See Friedman, 929 F.2d at 1156-57.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) addresses service of the United States and United States agencies, corporations, and officers or...
To continue reading
Request your trial