United States District Court, N.D. New York
YEFIMOVA Plaintiff, pro se.
D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge.
December 27, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Lyubov Yefimova
("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant
IRS. See Dkt. No. 1. On January 5, 2017, Magistrate
Judge David E. Peebles issued a Report, Recommendation, and
Order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and recommending that this Court
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend.
See Dkt. No. 5 at 12. Currently before the Court is
Judge Peebles's Report, Recommendation, and Order,
see Dkt. No. 5, which Plaintiff has filed objections
to, see Dkt. No. 6.
Judge Peebles observed, Plaintiff's complaint is largely
incomprehensible. See generally Dkt. No. 1; see
also Dkt. No. 5 at 2. It appears that Plaintiff is
complaining that she was "robbed" by the
See Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff's objections are
similarly unintelligible. See Dkt. No. 6. In her
objections, Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that
"[p]robably Judges finance terrorists behind whom on
September 11, 2001. They buy all judges for 20 percent from
billions of dollars. I can prove it.!!!" Id.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), courts
are guided by the applicable requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
While Rule 8(a) "does not require 'detailed factual
allegations, ' . . . it demands more than an
unadorned" recitation of the alleged misconduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)) (other citation omitted).
survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a party need
only present a claim that is "plausible on its
face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
omitted). In determining whether a complaint states a claim
upon which relief may be granted, "the court must accept
the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and
construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
favor." Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136
(2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). However, "the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover,
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Id. (citation omitted).
reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court
"may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party
makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's report,
the district court engages in de novo review of the
issues raised in the objections. See id.; Farid
v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). When a
party fails to make specific objections, the court reviews
the magistrate judge's report for clear error. See
Farid, 554 F.Supp.2d at 307; see also Gamble v.
Barnhart, No. 02-CV-1126, 2004 WL 2725126, *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 29, 2004). As discussed, Plaintiff has filed objections
in this case. Although a pro se litigant's
objections should be accorded leniency, "even a pro
se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation
must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in
the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed
a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior
argument." DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662
F.Supp.2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quotation omitted);
see also IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Nat'l Settlement
Agency, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 6865, 2008 WL 4810043, *1
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2008) ("To the extent . . . that the
party makes only conclusory or general arguments, or simply
reiterates the original arguments, the Court will review the
Report strictly for clear error."). Here,
Plaintiff's objections are essentially indecipherable and
do not appear to be specifically aimed at any particular
findings in Judge Peebles's Report, Recommendation, and
Order. However, regardless of whether the Court reviews the
Report, Recommendation, and Order de novo or for
clear error, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.
Judge Peebles observed, Plaintiff's factual allegations
are mostly unintelligible. See Dkt. No. 5 at 8;
see generally Dkt. No. 1. When allegations in a
complaint are largely indecipherable such that they do not
raise a cognizable cause of action, dismissal is proper.
See Canning v. Hofmann, No. 1:15-CV-0493,
2015 WL 6690170, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2015). Plaintiff's
objections are also largely indecipherable, as the following
two excerpts illustrate:
I very much ask you to review my court on IRS and I require
immediately opening of court, at my presence. I fail because
all courts are carried out behind my back. IRS - the robber
office. My lawyers said that I shan't more for 2011, one
employee of IRS said too that I don't owe more money,
however other employee told another, take from all twice
more, you have on it percent and that it makes all rates
*** Gavermenta America told me that I shall receive all 100
percent of the taxes calculated from me. As earlier I helped
FBI with fight against terrorism when terrorists wanted to
seize the plane going to Lasvegas and wanted to blow up the
city of Lasvegas. All of them were taken with gunpowder in 3
tons. I received nothing for this help, any dollar, all money
was transferred to terrorists.
Dkt. No. 6 at 1.
the only named Defendant is the IRS, which this Court assumes
is the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency.
See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. As Judge Peebles noted, the IRS
is generally entitled to sovereign immunity, and there is no
indication that Congress has authorized a lawsuit against the
IRS of the kind that Plaintiff is apparently trying to bring.
See Dkt. No. 5 at 8-9; see also Robinson v.
Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir.
1994) ("Because an action against a federal agency or
federal officers in their official capacities is essentially
a suit against the United States, such suits are also barred
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless such
immunity is waived.") (citing F.D.I.C. v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994)) (other citation
as Judge Peebles concluded, to the extent that Plaintiff
attempts to assert a cause of action under Section 1983, she
has failed to allege a deprivation of a federal right.
See Dkt. No. 5 at 9. Plaintiff's objections do
nothing to address or cure this deficiency.
a court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro
se litigant without granting leave to amend at least
once "'when a liberal reading of the complaint gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated.'"
Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2015)
(quoting Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d
Cir. 2010)). Due to the generally indecipherable nature of
Plaintiff's complaint and objections, the Court agrees
with Judge Peebles that Plaintiff's complaint should be
dismissed without prejudice. The Court directs Plaintiff to