United States District Court, D. Colorado
JEFFREY T. MAEHR, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. #45) AND
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. #82)
Reid Neureiter, United States Magistrate Judge.
Reid Neureiter United State Magistrate Judge
case is before the Court pursuant to Orders (Dkt. #46 &
#83) issued by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer referring
Plaintiff Jeffrey T. Maehr's Opposed Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #45) and Defendant United
States' Renewed Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. #82.) The Court
has carefully considered the motions, responses (Dkt. #54
& #84), replies (Dkt. #80 & #85), and the United
States' sur-reply. (Dkt. #89.) On July 22, 2019, the
Court heard argument on the subject motions. (See
Dkt. #90.) The Court has taken judicial notice of the
Court's file, considered the applicable Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and case law, and recommends Plaintiff's
Opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #45) be
denied and Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
#82) be granted.
Maehr, proceeding pro se,  initiated this lawsuit against the
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on September 4,
2018. (Dkt. #1.) On September 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Gordon P. Gallagher identified various pleading deficiencies
and ordered Mr. Maehr to file an amended complaint (Dkt. #5),
which Mr. Maehr did on December 3, 2018. (Dkt. #8.) The First
Amended Complaint was also deemed deficient (Dkt. #10), but
Mr. Maehr's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #14) was drawn
to Chief Judge Brimmer and me. (Dkt. #15.)
February 28, 2019, Mr. Maehr filed the subject preliminary
injunction motion. (Dkt. #45.) On March 11, 2019, the United
States moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt.
#51.) Mr. Maehr was given leave to further amend his
complaint (see Dkt. #77), and the United States
renewed the subject motion (Dkt. #82) to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint (“TAC”). (Dkt. #70.) On May 17,
2019, Mr. Maehr filed, without leave of Court, an
“Addendum to Amended Brief” (the
“Addendum”). (Dkt. #78.) The United States
construed the two filings as a single pleading and as the
operative complaint, and addressed both in its motion to
dismiss. For the sake of completeness and convenience, the
Court will do likewise. Each parties' motion is now ripe
Mr. Maehr's Allegations
Maehr has been litigating the validity of his tax liability
for many years, and before many different courts.
(See Dkt. #82 at 1 n.1 (collecting cases).) In this
lawsuit, Mr. Maehr challenges the IRS's tax assessment
for the 2003-06 tax years. He alleges that the assessment
“is erroneous due to [the IRS] manufacturing frivolous
assessment figures which have conflicted over the years,
” and that he “has firsthand knowledge of
personal bank business, social security administration, and
other asset records to dispute the original egregious and
unconscionable assessment.” (Dkt. #70 ¶ 3)
(emphases omitted.) Although Mr. Maehr concedes that he
“brought, eventually over several years, multiple suits
challenging the assessment, ” he claims that he was
“continually” denied due process. (Id.
Maehr asserts four claims for relief. First, he alleges that
he has been denied “pre-assessment third party
summonsed documents” in the IRS's possession during
past proceedings, including the government's garnishment
of Mr. Maehr's Social Security payments. (Id.
¶¶ 14-18.) Accordingly, he requests that the Court
order the United States to “produce the simple,
pre-assessment documents it claims it has and claims it used
to assess” him. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Maehr's second claim for relief appears to be a request
for “compensatory and punitive damages” against
the United States. (Id. ¶ 27.) Similarly, his
third claim for relief requests an award of attorney fees and
costs “and/or . . . whatever this honorable court deems
right, just and fair to compensate Plaintiff for the
depravation [sic] of rights, finances, living, health and
emotional state for well over ten years.” (Id.
in the Addendum, Mr. Maehr alleges that the United States
possesses an “‘Individual Master File' . . .
whereby Defendant's records and documentation of all
assessments and all elements related to such assessments are
to be part of Defendant's lawful records.” (Dkt.
#78 ¶ 1.) He asks the Court to order the United States
to provide him with this file, which he claims “likely
will show that the assessment is fraudulent[.]”
(Id. ¶ 2.)
United States' Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. ...