Opinion
Case No. 5:03 CV 1818, Resolving Docket Nos. 11, 14, 15, 16.
September 10, 2004
ORDER
In addition to the government's motion to dismiss this interpleader action (Docket No. 7), defendant Derrell Lee Ehmer has filed several pro se motions in his effort to reclaim his deposit account balance of $1,631.50. The first of these is his "notice of "non-acceptance of fraudulent removal and demand to remand case back to its lawful state jurisdiction." (Docket No. 11). He maintains that the federal court is without jurisdiction and consequently the matter must be dismissed and remanded to the state court for which it originated. First the Assistant United States Attorney certainly can represent the United States and the Internal Revenue Service is not a "foreign agency." Moreover, Mr. Ehmer is confusing interpleader with an action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). He is correct that declaratory judgment cannot be given in a matter "with respect to Federal taxes." See Fogel v. U.S., 2001 WL 306496 (S.D. Cal. 2001). However, plaintiff was not seeking a declaration concerning Mr. Ehmer's tax liability. It was seeking interpleader to relieve it from civil or criminal action instigated by Mr. Ehmer or the United States. The same arguments appear in Mr. Ehmer's "collateral attack of U.S. Attorney's motion to dismiss, lack of authority, lack of jurisdiction of this court, and demand for remand back to state court" (Docket No. 14) and his "demand for declaratory relief" (Docket No. 15). The entry for Docket No. 16 indicates a motion, but it is apparent that it is Mr. Ehmer's response to plaintiff's and the United States' motions.
As explained in the report and recommendation, the district court does have jurisdiction over this interpleader action as presenting a federal question, due to the involvement of the Internal Revenue Service in the lien against Mr. Ehmer and the levy against his interest in deposit accounts held by plaintiff. Accordingly, Mr. Ehmer's motions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.