Ohan v. Rettig
| Docket Number | 3:23-cv-00046-SLG |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | FESTUS O. OHAN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES P. RETTIG, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 2, 2023, self-represented litigant Festus O. Ohan (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint (“Complaint”) and paid the filing fee.[1] Plaintiff seeks to reopen a prior case[2] and alleges “serious violations] of [his] rights, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.”[3] On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Filing” containing additional pages of handwritten narrative that he requested the Clerk to file in the nine cases he has initiated in the District of Alaska in 2022 and 2023[4] Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, and non-prisoner complaints are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or 1915A screening requirements. Nonetheless, “federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction[.]”[5]To the extent the Court can decipher the Complaint, it is immediately apparent that the Complaint is fundamentally flawed. Plaintiff does not provide-and the Court finds no basis-to reopen his closed case. Further, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserts facts[6] that are likely time-barred by the statute of limitations,[7] and brings claims previously dismissed, and lacks a factual or legal basis. Even liberally construed, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
It appears that Plaintiff seeks to reopen Ohan v. United States, Case No. 3:22-cv-011-SLG, by filing a new Complaint against Charles P. Rettig, former Commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)[8]; Brian Wooten, Director of Collections for the California Franchise Tax Board Michelle Johnson, accountant for the IRS; the IRS; and the California Franchise Tax Board.[9] The Court takes judicial notice[10] of Plaintiff's other federal cases involving the same defendants and seemingly related claims.
In Ohan v. United States,[11] Plaintiff initially named Defendant Charles Rettig as a defendant.[12] The United States filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failing to “present sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief.”[13] The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim regarding his tax refund with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, but granted leave to amend his remaining claims, which were undiscernible.[14] The Court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for failing to comply with the Court's order regarding amending his complaint and because Plaintiff's subsequent filings could not be construed as an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal.[15] Plaintiff did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Ninth Circuit after a final judgment was entered in that case. Instead, he continued to submit nonprocedural compliant filings in that case[16] and filed this new case.
In Ohan v. Fontura, Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Plaintiff also named Charles Rettig as a defendant, included allegations against the California tax board in his narrative,[17] and provided a copy of an order from the U.S. Tax Court within the various documents he filed with the Court.[18] The Court found Ohan v. Fontura and three other cases fundamentally similar and dismissed all four in a joint order.[19] The Court found multiple procedural and substantive deficiencies, such as naming defendants who are immune from suit, bringing claims previously dismissed, asserting claims that are outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or failing to provide a factual or legal basis.[20]
Then, in Ohan v. Zion, et al., the Court found Plaintiff's initial complaint “lack[ed] jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims or the claims [were] unsupported by any cognizable legal theory[,]” but granted leave to amend. After Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed the case finding it suffered from the same deficiencies, such that amendment would be futile.[21] Despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He fails to comply with Court orders and continues to submit non-procedurally compliant filings in open and closed cases.[22]
I. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
To state a claim, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”[23] “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ”[24] A claim is “plausible” when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct.[25]
A complaint seeking relief from a federal court must be clear. It must be legibly handwritten or typewritten and have margins of at least one inch around all text.[26] A complaint should set out each claim for relief separately and include specifics about how each named defendant is involved in causing an injury to the plaintiff.[27] There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed injury.[28]
The Complaint here is neither short nor plain and does not set forth facts that could state a viable claim for relief. The Court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact.[29] Plaintiff's narrative contains unintelligible claims concerning conspiracy, harassment, stolen wealth, foreclosed property, garnished wages, psychiatric hospitalizations, and personal injury.[30] He includes allegations against individuals not named as defendants, events not reasonably related to or involving the named Defendants, and repeats meritless and duplicative claims raised in previous cases. Plaintiff's extensive narrative fails to explain (1) the specific harm that occurred to him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to him. Further, even if the Court could discern a plausible claim, the alleged events appear to be time-barred by the statute of limitations. If a claim is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, dismissal is proper even if the plaintiff is self-represented.[31] Read as a whole and liberally construed, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Complaint is DISMISSED.[32]
II. Plaintiff is Precluded from Bringing Previously Adjudicated Claims
A court may on its own initiative dismiss a case on preclusion grounds where the records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties has been dismissed. Dismissal with prejudice prevents subsequent refiling is because it is considered an “adjudication on the merits.”[33]Once a plaintiff's claim is adjudicated, a person is precluded from bring the same claim again against those parties or those in privity with those parties.[34] Further, a case may be dismissed as frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”[35]
Based on Plaintiff's stated intention to reopen his closed case, and from what the Court can discern from review, Plaintiff is realleging claims that were previously dismissed with prejudice. Further, by including multiple case numbers on his cover sheet at Docket 3, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff evidently intends for his cases to be related. Except for allegations under RICO discussed below, the Court cannot discern any claims that have not been brought before the Court. Thus, aside from failing to state a claim, there is additional basis for dismissal of the present action as it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”[36]
III. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
Because Plaintiff's previous filings are so convoluted, the Court is unclear if he previously attempted to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). But even if this is the first time Plaintiff raises RICO, the addition of this claim cannot “revive an already barred action.”[37] A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.[38] And in any event, allegations of foreclosures and “towing” of Plaintiff's car are insufficient to state a plausible RICO claim.[39] Therefore, this claim is DISMISSED.
IV. Amendment is Futile
If a court dismisses a complaint, then as a general rule it “should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”[40] In making this determination, a court should consider factors such as “the presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the proposed amendment.”[41] A district court may on its own initiative dismiss a complaint prior to responsive pleadings if the complaint is frivolous.[42]
Plaintiff continues to demonstrate an inability to follow the applicable federal and local rules and the directions of this Court and fails to present viable claims for the Court's adjudication. The Court finds that according to Plaintiff leave to attempt to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this order would be futile. While the Court is not providing Plaintiff an opportunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial