Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51177/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51177-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carol Fritz
Appellant
Steven Fritz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51177

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

STEVEN FRITZ, also known as Stephen Fritz, also known as Steve Fritz; 

CAROL FRITZ, also known as Caroline Fritz,

Defendants - Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CV-550

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The United States sought to collect unpaid federal income tax liabilities 

owed by Steven Fritz. After a series of thorough opinions, the district court 

granted summary judgment in favor of the government. Fritz appeals, 

challenging not the substance of the tax assessment, but the jurisdiction of the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-51177 Document: 00513092281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2015
No. 14-51177

2

federal court, the due process he was provided, and several other ancillary 

objections.1 We affirm.

I.

The magistrate judge managing this litigation ably set out the 

background. In brief, the United States “brought this suit seeking, among 

other things, to reduce Defendant Steven Fritz’s 2000-2003 tax assessments to 

judgment and to foreclose on its federal tax liens against him.”2 The district 

court found Fritz liable.3 Fritz timely appeals.

II.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Fritz first argues that the district court lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction. It did not. This dispute is brought by the federal government and

arises under the federal tax laws: it is settled beyond dispute that the federal 

courts have the power to resolve such cases.4 

 

1 Only Steven Fritz, acting pro se, has filed a brief. Carol Fritz has not signed Mr. 

Fritz’s brief, nor filed one of her own. Because “in federal court a party can represent himself 

or be represented by an attorney, but cannot be represented by a nonlawyer,” Gonzales v. 

Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998), his arguments cannot be used to support any 

claims she might have.

2 United States v. Fritz, No. SA-12-CA-550, 2014 WL 5514381, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 

10, 2014) (Bemporad, M.J.).

3 United States v. Fritz, No. SA-12-CA-550, 2014 WL 5525220, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 

2, 2014) (Biery, C.J.). 4 See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 

civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”); Id. § 1340 (“The district 

courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress 

providing for internal revenue . . . .”); Id. § 1345 (“Except as otherwise provided by Act of 

Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or 

proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly 

authorized to sue by Act of Congress.”); 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a) (“In any case where there has 

been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, 

whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of 

the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to 

enforce the lien of the United States . . . .”).

Case: 14-51177 Document: 00513092281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2015
No. 14-51177

3

In his brief, Fritz appears to argue that the United States must make a 

sworn statement attesting to the above facts in order for the court to exercise 

jurisdiction. He offers no relevant authority for such a statement, and we 

decline to impute such a requirement.5

B. Personal Jurisdiction

Next, Fritz argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction 

over him. Again, it did not. Fritz was served process at an address in La 

Vernia, Texas. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), “[s]erving a 

summons . . . establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant . . . who is 

subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where 

the district court is located.”6 The jurisdiction of Texas state courts, in turn, 

extends to the limits of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,7

and it is long-established that the Constitution is not offended if a state 

exercises jurisdiction over a resident defendant.8

C. Jury Claim

Fritz also claims that the court has denied him a right to a jury trial 

under the Seventh Amendment. The district court, however, granted summary 

judgment in favor of the government (a decision Fritz does not challenge), and 

as we have long held:

The function of a jury is to try the material facts; where no such 

facts are in dispute, there is no occasion for jury trial. Thus the 

right to trial by jury does not prevent a court from granting 

 

5 We have held that the party seeking federal jurisdiction may be required to prove 

jurisdictional facts, such as the adequacy of the amount in controversy in a diversity case. 

See, e.g., Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). We have never –

nor has any other court, to the best of our knowledge – required the United States 

government to prove that it is, in fact, the United States government.

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A).

7 Gonzalez v. Bank of Am. Ins. Servs., Inc., 454 F. App’x 295, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2011)

(unpublished). 8 See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415-16 

(1984).

Case: 14-51177 Document: 00513092281 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2015
No. 14-51177

4

summary judgment. When the district court properly entered 

summary judgment dismissing his claim, appellant’s demand for a 

jury trial became moot.9

D. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Fritz next argues that the federal government acted as a debt collector 

in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).10 His 

argument is largely incoherent, but in any event, it fails. Federal government 

officers and employees are explicitly exempted from the FDCPA’s definition of 

“debt collectors.”11

E. Recusal

Finally, Fritz posits that Chief Judge Biery ought be recused. He does 

not appear to have moved for recusal below, and “[r]equests for recusal raised 

for the first time on appeal are generally rejected as untimely.”12 We do so 

here.

III.

Any remaining arguments are equally without merit. We affirm the 

judgment of the district court.

 

9 Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107, 108 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted).

10 15 U.S.C. § 1692a et seq.

11 Id. § 1692a(6)(C).

12 Andradei v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2013).

Case: 14-51177 Document: 00513092281 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/24/2015