FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13777 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 9 5 1 - C V- OR L - 2 2 - DA B E D W A R D C . B R A N C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 22, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E dw ar d C . B ranca, proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce o f h is c o m p la in t a lle g in g th e im p o s itio n o f af r au d u le n t f

e d e r a l ta x lie n o n h is2

pr ope rty , i n vi ol a t i on of F l a . S t a t . §§ 713. 31( 2) ( b) a nd 713. 901( 4) , a nd de m a ndi ng r e l i e f i n the f orm of ade c l a r a t ory j udgm e ntc a nc e l l i ng the l i e n a nd a w a r di ng pu ni t i ve dam ages i n acc ordance w i th F l a. S t at . § 7 13 . 31 (2)( b) & (c ). B ranca or i gi na l l y f

i l e d the c om pl a i nti n the C i r c ui tC ourt , O r a nge C ounty , F l or i da , butthe g o v e rn m e n t r e m o v e d th e c a s e , p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 4 4 1 , 1 4 4 2 , a n d 1 4 4 4 , to the di stri ctcourt , w here i tw as subsequent l y di sm i ss ed for l ac k o f s ubj ec t -m att er j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d f

a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m u p o n wh i c h r e l i e f c o u l d b e g r a n t e d . On appe a l , B r a nc aa r gue s tha tr e m ova l of the c a s e w a s i m pr ope r , a nd a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d b y di sm i ss i ng the com pl ai ntfor l ac k o f s ubj ec t -m att er j uri sdi ct i on i nst ea d o f r em andi ng the ca se t o the O rang e C ou nty C i rc ui tC ou rt w here i tw as ori gi nal l y f i l ed. H e a l so as se rt s thatpu rs uantt o the D ec l ar at ory Judg m entA ct , al tho ug h federa l court s are proh i bi t ed fr om grant i ng decl ar at ory r e lie f w ith r e s p e c t to f

e d e r a l ta x e s , F lo r id ac ir c u it c o u rts r e ta in th e p o w e rto a d j u d i c a t e h i s c l a i m. W e a f f i rm. T h e U n ite d S ta te s m a y r e m o v e a n y c a s e in w h ic h it is n a m e d ap a rty to f e d e r a l c o u rt. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 2 ( a ) . B r a n c an a m e d th e U n ite d S ta te s ap a rty to the i ns t a nts ui t , c i t i ng 28 U . S . C . § 2410( a ) . “ A nya c t i on br oughtunde r§ 2410 of thi s t i t l e a gai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es i n any S t at e c ou rtm aybe re m ov ed by the U ni t ed S t at es t o the di stri ctcourtof the U ni t ed S t at es for the di stri ctand d i vi si on i n w hi ch3

the ac t i on i s pendi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 44 4. In hi s c om pl ai nt , B ranca s ou gh tre l i ef u n d e rth e D e c la r a to ry J u d g m e n t A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 0 1 . N o tab ly , th e A c t p r o h ib its f e d e r a l c o u rts f

r o m is s u in g d e c la r a to ry ju d g m e n ts in f e d e r a l ta x c a s e s , w ith c e rta in e x c e p tio n s n o t ap p lic ab le h e r e . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 0 1 ( a ) ( e x c e p tin g c a s e s “w ith resp ectt o F ed eral t ax es” fro m A ct ’ s co v erag e). F i n al l y, u n d er § 2 4 1 0 , C o n g ress has w ai ved the U ni t ed S t at es ’ i m m un i ty f rom sui ton l y t o the ext entof a procedural c h a lle n g e , b u t n o t to as u it c o n c e rn in g th e u n d e r ly in g m e r its o f ata x a s s e s s m e n t. S t oeckl i n v . U ni t ed S t at es , 94 3 F . 2d 42 , 43 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). B e c aus e C ongr e s s ha s e xpl i c i t l y pr ovi de d f orr e m ova l t o f

e de r a l c ourtf

or s u its b r o u g h t u n d e r§ 2 4 1 0 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin r e m o v in g th e c a s e to f e de r a l c ourt . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 1444. T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o di d note rrby di s m i s s i ng, f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on, B r a nc a ’ s c l a i m s c ha l l e ngi ng the unde r l y i ng m e r i t s of

hi s f e de r a l t a x l i e n a nd s e e ki ng de c l a r a t ory r e l i e f . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2 20 1(a) . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr by f i nd i ng thatthe U ni t ed S t a t e s ha d notw a i ve d s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty f ors ui t s c ha l l e ngi ng the unde r l y i ng m e r i t s of af e de r a l t a x l i e n unde r§ 2410. T hus , i t s di s m i s s a l , w i th pr e j udi c e , of

the re m ai ni ng po rt i on s of the sui tw as prop er . W e are un pers uaded b y B ranca’ s other a r g u me n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.