Case ID: f-appx_507/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carey KING, Jr.; Melba Ireland King, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Aron JOHNSON, Individually & in his official capacity as Tax Assessor for Lasalle Parish; Louisiana Tax Commission; Lloyd G. Handorf, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-30857
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 10, 2013.
    David P. Spence, Law Offices of David P. Spence, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    John Christopher Guillet, Corkern, Crews & Guillet, L.L.C., Natchitoches, LA, for Defendant-Appellee, Aron Johnson.
    Barbara Bell Melton, Jimmy Roy Fair-cloth, Jr., Faircloth Law Group, L.L.C., Alexandria, LA, for Defendants-Appellees, Louisiana Tax Commission, and Lloyd G. Handorf.
    Jonathan Scott Ringo, Faircloth Law Group, L.L.C., Alexandria, LA, for Defendant-Appellee, Louisiana Tax Commission.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reason stated by that court. Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the restriction on federal courts from interfering in the fiscal operations by state governments by not seeking relief that directly and expressly prohibits the collection of state taxes. This contention ignores the scope of the law and the true nature of the lawsuit. The correctness of the appraisal and the tax is the basis of the complaint and damages sought. It is the administration of the state tax system that is said to have violated plaintiffs’ constitutional right. As this court has held in ANR Pipeline Company v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 646 F.3d 940 (C.A.52011) and by the Supreme Court in Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100,102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981), plaintiffs’ suit is barred.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.