Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01842/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01842-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-023 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 15-1842 

___________ 

WILLIAM A. HIMCHAK, III, Navy Veteran 

 

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Office of Chief 

Counsel - Harrisburg, PA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY 

AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, Director - Annville, PA; BILL SHUSTER, 

Congressman, 9th Dist. (PA) - Harrisburg, PA; RICHARD ALLOWAY, II, 

Senator, 33rd Dist. (PA) - Harrisburg, PA; R. THOMAS, Chairman, 

Franklin Co. Commissioners Ofc. - Chambersburg, PA; D. KELLER, 

Commissioner, Franklin Co. Commissioners Ofc. - Chambersburg, PA; 

R. ZIOBROWSKI, Commissioner, Franklin Co. Commissioners 

Ofc. - Chambersburg, PA; MARYBETH SHANK, Atty, Franklin Co. 

Tax Solicitor - Chambersburg, PA; DENNIS R. O'TOOLE, Franklin Co. 

Tax Claim Bureau (FCTCB), (fmr.) Tax Director - Chambersburg, PA; 

ANITA L. KELLER, Franklin Co. Tax Claim Bureau (FCTCB), Tax 

Director - Chambersburg, PA; JUSTIN D. SLEP, Franklin Co. Veterans 

Affairs (VA), Director - Chambersburg, PA; DANE ANTHONY, Franklin Co. 

Sheriff's Office, Sheriff - Chambersburg, PA; JERROLD A. SULCOVE, Atty, 

Chambersburg Area School District (CASD) - Chambersburg, PA; RHODIA THOMAS, 

Exec. Director - Atty, MidPenn Legal Services - Harrisburg, PA; BRANDON 

COPELAND, Atty, Midpenn Legal Services - Chambersburg, PA 

 William A. Himchak, III, 

 Appellant 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
2 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 1-14-cv-01640) 

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner 

____________________________________ 

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

October 22, 2015 

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: November 13, 2015 ) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

 

PER CURIAM 

 Appellant, William A. Himchak, III, appeals pro se from the District Court’s order 

dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act. Because 

the appeal is lacking in arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

I. 

 Himchak is a resident of, and homeowner in, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. In 

August 2014, he filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court 

challenging the real estate and school property taxes assessed on his house located at 980 

 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
3 

Cranberry Drive in Chambersburg. Himchak named as defendants members of the 

Franklin County Tax Claim Bureau as well as various other state and county government 

officials.1

 Himchak alleged, inter alia, that the defendants had violated his due process 

rights by “engag[ing] in deceptive and malicious taunting and unlawful criminal 

extortion[ and] racketeering” by seeking to recover unpaid property taxes. (Compl. 2, 

ECF No. 1.) Himchak further alleged that the County’s property taxes are 

unconstitutional, and that the defendants’ extortion tactics, deadly threats, and attempts to 

steal his private property amount to domestic terrorism. By way of relief, Himchak 

requested compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an order declaring property 

taxes unconstitutional in all Commonwealth counties.2

 

 

1

 Specifically, Himchak named the following defendants in the complaint: Pennsylvania 

Attorney General Kathleen Kane; Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett; the Pennsylvania 

Department of Education, Office of Chief Council; the Pennsylvania Department of 

Military and Veterans Affairs; Pennsylvania Congressman Bill Shuster; Pennsylvania 

Senator Richard Alloway, II; Franklin County Commissioner R. Thomas; Franklin 

County Commissioner D. Keller; Franklin County Commissioner R. Ziobrowski; 

Franklin County Tax Solicitor Mary Beth Shank; Franklin County Tax Claim Bureau and 

former Director Dennis R. O’Toole; Franklin County Tax Director Anita L. Keller; 

Franklin County Veterans Affairs and Director Justin D. Slep; Franklin County Sheriff 

Dane Anthony; Chambersburg Area School District and Attorney Jerrold Sulcove; 

Attorney Rhodia Thomas, Executive Director, Mid Penn Legal Services; and Attorney 

Brandon Copeland, Mid Penn Legal Services. 

2

 Shortly after filing his complaint, Himchak filed an emergency motion for a preliminary 

injunction to prevent the County from selling his property due to his failure to pay 2012 

taxes. Himchak asked the District Court to enjoin the sale while his appeal from his 2014 

property tax assessment was pending. On September 22, 2014, the District Court denied 

the motion on the ground that the sale was related to his 2012 tax assessment—not the 

2014 assessment under review. Himchak filed four motions for reconsideration, but the 

District Court denied each one. Upon review, we discern no error in the District Court’s 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
4 

 The District Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge who reviewed the 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended that the court dismiss it for 

lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act.3

 The District Court agreed, overruled 

Himchak’s objections, determined that any amendment would be futile, and dismissed 

the complaint.4

 Himchak filed a timely appeal. 

II. 

 We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Because Himchak has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

 

order denying injunctive relief, see Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. 

Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 658 (3d Cir. 1991), or any abuse of discretion in its subsequent 

orders denying reconsideration thereof, see Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. 

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). 

3

 The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the complaint was deficient for 

numerous additional reasons, including: failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure; failure to establish personal involvement of defendants 

Kathleen Kane, Tom Corbett, Bill Schuster, and the Pennsylvania Departments of 

Education and Military & Veteran Affairs; failure to overcome the sovereign immunity 

bar with regard to the Departments of Education and Military & Veteran Affairs; and 

improperly attempting to initiate criminal proceedings as a private person. Upon review, 

we add that Himchak’s complaint was also deficient insofar as he failed to allege that the 

attorneys at Mid Penn Legal Services were state actors. See Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 

646 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff seeking to hold an individual liable under § 1983 must 

establish that []he was deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state 

actor.”). 

4

 In its order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District 

Court also denied Himchak’s motions requesting intervention in a Franklin County action 

to quiet title. (Mots., ECF Nos. 27 and 31.) Because the District Court correctly 

concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the County’s tax assessment 

procedures and remedies, it properly denied these motions. 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
5 

§ 1915, we may dismiss his appeal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it has no arguable basis in 

law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

 We will dismiss this appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Tax Injunction 

Act provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the 

assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and 

efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. While 

§ 1341 speaks only in terms of equitable relief, principles of comity also bar actions 

seeking damages. See Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 

100, 107 (1981). Thus, “a federal court cannot entertain a suit posing either an equitable 

or a legal challenge to state or local taxes” if the state provides an adequate remedy. 

Kerns v. Dukes, 153 F.3d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1998). 

 The District Court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to 

consider Himchak’s challenges to the Franklin County real estate and school property tax 

assessments. We have repeatedly held that the Pennsylvania state courts provide a 

“plain, speedy, and efficient” remedy for challenges to a county’s assessment of real 

property taxes, see Gass v. County of Allegheny, 371 F.3d 134, 137-38 (3d Cir. 2004), 

and Himchak has not demonstrated that the state’s administrative and judicial systems are 

inadequate or unavailable to him.5

 See Behe v. Chester Cty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 

 

5

 Because Himchak could not have cured the jurisdictional defect through any 

amendment, the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint without first 

providing him leave to amend it. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
6 

952 F.2d 66, 68 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that the Tax Injunction Act barred federal 

jurisdiction over homeowners’ claims of unconstitutional taxation because Pennsylvania 

offers adequate remedy to challenge property assessment procedures). 

III. 

 Because this appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Himchak’s motions for injunctive relief are denied as moot. 

 

Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 

293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Case: 15-1842 Document: 003112128604 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/13/2015