Filed: April 21, 2025
| Entered: April 21, 2025
Johnson v. New York State Tax Appeals et al
890 Other Statutory Actions | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court took a look at the complaint submitted by Plaintiff Robert Johnson, a pro se litigant who seeks over $300 million based on a tax dispute with the New York state tax authorities. Johnson filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted a draft of this complaint. The application is dismissed, for two reasons. First, Johnson did not submit the entire form. He submitted only the first page, and it is unsigned. So the submission is incomplete. Second, this Court would deny the application, even if Johnson had submitted a complete form and demonstrated that he is poor. A plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis based on poverty alone. The Court must prescreen the complaint before accepting the complaint for filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See id.; see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007); Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Courts screen complaints under section 1915(e)(2)(B) in the same manner that they review motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2011). The complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The statement also must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," which means that the pleaded facts must show there is "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When screening a pro se plaintiff's complaint, courts construe the plaintiff's allegations liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Courts also must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inference in the plaintiff's favor." Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016). This Court took a look at the complaint as part of prescreening. Johnson seeks to sue the New York State Tax Appeals, as well as two individuals in Albany, New York. He purports to bring a Bivens claim. The draft complaint (on the Court's form) describes the problem as follows: "IRS tax fraud, pro se corporation, erroneous computes, white collar crimes, black collar crimes & fraud." He adds: "IRS tax fraud, enterprise corruption, fraud, ponzi schemes and black collar crimes." He later alleges that he was "discriminated against for tax returns, tax refunds and other funds due to race, sex, age, religion, financial status, education and disabilities." He seeks $100 million in punitive damages, plus $100 million for pain and suffering, plus $100 million for insurance coverage. The complaint does not come close to stating a claim. He purports to bring a Bivens claim against federal officials, but by the look of things, the complaint is against state tax officials. A tax problem does not give rise to a Bivens claim, anyway (which continues to exist in only limited spheres, as the Supreme Court has made clear). He seems to allege discrimination when it comes to taxes, but there is no factual meat on the bone. The complaint does not include any facts that could give rise to a plausible claim for relief. And the allegations as a whole give this Court the firm conviction that the complaint is frivolous. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 04/21/2025)