Opinion
6:04-CV-7 (WLS).
January 26, 2005
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is the Defendant United States' motion to dismiss. (Tab 6). For the following reasons, the United States' motion to dismiss (Tab 6) is GRANTED.
Between 1988 and 1995, Plaintiff did not pay his income taxes and he owed in excess of $90,000. On January 11, 1995, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") filed a notice of tax lien against property owned by Plaintiff. The IRS then initiated an action to enter onto his property to seize certain property. In re Tax Indebtedness of J.R. Seay, WL 21995497 (M.D. Ga. 2003). When the IRS entered onto the property and examined a safe and found nothing of value, it returned the items seized and ended its legal actions. On June 12, 1995, the IRS administratively seized certain real property owned by Plaintiff. On August 25, 1995, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against the Government in the above referenced case. Id. at Tab 5. Plaintiff asked the Court to restrain the IRS from selling his real property. The IRS opposed the motion. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he had not been properly served with a notice of deficiency, notice of seizure and that the IRS lacked implementing legislation to authorize its actions. The Court entered a temporary restraining order forbidding the sale of the property. Id. at Tab 6.
The restraining order remained in effect until July, 2003, when the Court granted the IRS's motion to dissolve the TRO and to dismiss. Id. at Tab 16. The Court found that Plaintiff's arguments were frivolous. Id. Thereafter, the IRS, on January 13, 2004, scheduled a sale of the property. In response to the notice of sale, Plaintiff filed the instant action to quiet title to the property in Plaintiff. (Tab 1). The allegations in the complaint to quiet title are the exact allegations as those raised in the previous action for a temporary restraining order. (Tab 1).
On February 18, 2004, this Court denied Plaintiff's request for an injunction to stop the sale on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. (Tab). The property was sold at public sale on February 19, 2004. The Government asks this Court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
Res judicata bars the relitigation of matters raised in a previous suit between or involving the same parties. Manning v. City of Auburn, 955 F.2d 1992 (11th Cir. 1992). A finding of res judicata is appropriate when four elements are present: (1) there must be a final judgment on the merits; (2) the judgment must come from a Court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity, must be identical; and (4) the cause of action must be the same. Jones v. New England Life Ins. Co., 974 F.Supp 1476 (M.D. Ga. 1996).
The Government clearly satisfies the first three elements. The only question is whether the cause of action is the same. Except for the title of the claim in this complaint, the claims are identical as the previous action involving Plaintiff. The claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts or raises the same issues as the previous claim and for res judicata purposes are the same claims. Jones, 974 F.Supp. at 1481. As with Plaintiff's claim for a temporary restraining order, the claim to "quiet title" is frivolous and the same as those in the request for a TRO. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint to quiet title (Tab 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.