Opinion
Civil No. 06-0998 (RBK).
September 20, 2006
OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Clifton Beale seeks injunctive relief against Defendant United States of America, inter alia Kathleen Setimi, Revenue Agent. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally seized Plaintiff's property by placing a lien on Plaintiff's real property, and by placing a wage levy on Plaintiff's spouse's salary. Defendant asserts that the Internal Revenue Service took these actions to satisfy Plaintiff's delinquent federal tax debt. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that 26 U.S.C. § 7421 strips federal courts of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief regarding tax collection. Moreover, Defendant argues that even if the federal court had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and without merit. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting that the case was improperly removed to federal court. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se plaintiff Clifton Beale ("Plaintiff") is a resident of New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that on June 14, 2005, Defendant Kathleen Setimi ("Setimi"), an Agent with the Internal Revenue Service, illegally seized Plaintiff's real property when Setimi executed a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" against Plaintiff's residence located at 6102 Forrest Avenue, Pennsauken, New Jersey. (Pl.'s Compl. Ex. A-12.) Plaintiff alleges this lien was illegal under New Jersey law because Setimi failed to obtain a court order before executing the lien. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally imposed a wage levy against Plaintiff's spouse, Debra Beale. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the wage levy exceeds the maximum deduction permitted under New Jersey and federal law. (Pl.'s Compl. at 4.)
On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a "Motion in Ex Parte for the Purposes of Determining Probable Cause for Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest Pursuant to New Jersey Rule 3:2 and N.J.S.A. 2B:12-21 and Federal Criminal Rule 4(a) and Rule 41(b)" in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division. On March 2, 2006, Defendant removed the case to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. On March 23, 2006, Defendant moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the federal Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421 ("Act"), strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief regarding tax collection. Defendant further argues that even if the federal court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim, the claim is frivolous and without merit. On April 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a "Counter Claim and Motion to Dimiss for Movant," opposing Defendant's motion to dismiss.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
II. DISCUSSION
12Doe v. Delie257 F.3d 309313Piecknick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania36 F.3d 12501255Burstein v. Retirement Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Educ. Research Found.334 F.3d 365374 26 U.S.C. § 7421Enochs v. Williams Packing Navigation Co. 370 U.S. 1 7 Id. Id.
Plaintiff's arguments are difficult to discern, but Plaintiff primarily asserts that this Court has no jurisdiction over his claims, and that this case was improperly removed. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the return of property and money attached to satisfy Plaintiff's tax bill. Finally, Plaintiff asks that this Court issue a warrant to arrest Setimi for her allegedly illegal participation in the seizure of Plaintiff's property.
Plaintiff's claims fall squarely within the scope of the Act. Plaintiff made no legitimate argument that the Internal Revenue Service acted in bad faith, or otherwise lacked a basis for its assessments, when it determined Plaintiff's tax liability. Plaintiff's sole recourse, under the Act, is to pay the taxes due and pursue a refund in Tax Court. Therefore, under the plain language of the Act, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim.