Case ID: f-appx_502/html/0862-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Melvin C. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, The Internal Revenue Service, The State of New York, The State of Florida, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-11335
    Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2012.
    Melvin C. Lewis, Clermont, FL, pro se.
    Laurie Snyder, Michael J. Haungs, Steven Christopher Woodliff, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Victor G. Paladino, William J. McCarthy, Attorney General’s Office, Albany, NY, Ana Margarita Gargollo-McDonald, Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Melvin Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his pro se civil complaint, which alleged that the United States and other defendants placed unlawful liens on his property due to unpaid federal income taxes, and also alleged that he was owed damages stemming from his liens over the United States. Although Lewis essentially challenged his underlying tax debt and the resulting liens, he brought claims pursuant to general jurisdiction statutes and admiralty laws.

We conclude from the record that the district court did not err in granting defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where (1) New York and Florida were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; (2) the United States was immune under general rules of sovereign immunity; (3) Lewis’s true recourse, if any, was in the United States Tax Court; and (4) his complaint was patently frivolous. Additionally, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, where any amendment to the complaint would not have cured the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a fatal deficiency. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.