Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norgaard v. United States

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

November 3, 2016

KATHLEEN M. NORGAARD, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          F. Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court (1) grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) denies her motion for preliminary injunction; and (3) directs the clerk to issue summons for service of the complaint on the United States.

         I. Background

         On October 24, 2016, Kathleen M. Norgaard filed a pro se complaint against the United States challenging, among other things, the denial of her refund claim by the Internal Revenue Service. Norgaard seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Along with her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to have this court enjoin Wells Fargo from foreclosing on her residence at 11 Tucker Street, Marblehead, Massachusetts.

         II. Discussion

         A. Filing Fee

         Based upon review of plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court concludes that plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of funds to prepay the filing fee. The Court therefore will grant the motion.

         B. Screening of the Complaint

         Where, as here, a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, summons do not issue until the Court reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies the substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting that review, the Court must construe the complaint liberally because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).

         Here, plaintiff seeks judicial review of the denial of her claim for a refund of taxes she has already paid. The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7422, provides for civil actions to recover a tax refund, and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) vests district courts and the Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction to hear such a case. Accordingly, the Court will direct the clerk to issue summons for service of the complaint on the United States.

         C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

         Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction seeks an order from this Court pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would stay the foreclosure of her home by Wells Fargo. The motion for preliminary injunction is accompanied by a supporting memorandum stating that plaintiff obtained a reverse mortgage from Wells Fargo in order to pay off a small business loan. The memorandum further states that Orlans-Moran, on behalf of Wells Fargo, seeks to foreclose on her property based on a claimed arrearage that is several hundred thousand dollars more than permitted under the contract. Plaintiff contends that she subsequently discovered that the homestead protections under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 199 and the hardship exemptions from property taxes under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 59 were not available to her under the terms of the reverse mortgage. Plaintiff further contends that she is entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The certificate of service indicates that courtesy copies of the motion and memorandum were forwarded to Wells Fargo, Orlans Moran, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressman Seth Moulton.

         The Court need not reach the merits of the motion, because Wells Fargo is not a party to this action. Except in limited circumstances not relevant here, a court may not order injunctive relief as to non-parties to an action. Wells Fargo is not a defendant, and accordingly this Court may not issue an injunction against it.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.