2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-8-2003 

# Lo ck le a r v . Re min g t on P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2409

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L ock le a r v . Re min g t on " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 212. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/212NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2409
AU TR EY J. LO CK LE AR , Ap pellan t,

v. WILLIAM M. REM INGTO N, Director of Reve nue in an d for the S tate of De laware
On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court

For the Dist

rict of Delaware (D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-01579) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robins on
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 1, 2003
Be for e: A LIT O, B AR RY and AL DI SE RT , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: October

7, 2003)
OPI NION

PER CU RIA M Appellant Autrey J. Locklear fil ed this in forma paup eris civil ri ghts action against the Direc tor of Revenue for the State of Delaware when he was unable t o persuade t he1 Inasmuch as we are wri ting onl y for the part ies, we need not set

forth t he factualand proceduralbackground of this matter, exc ept as maybe helpfulto our brief di scussi on. 2 stat e taxi ng authori ties to accept his offer of $500.00 to s ettl e his t ax debt of $358,756.34. 1 Although the s tate was unwilli ng to accept only $500.00 it

did make a counter- offer of $108, 353.52. Thi s was unacceptable to Lockl ear and he fi led an adm inistrative appe al with the D elaw are T ax A ppea l Boa rd, and subs eque nt app eals w ith the De laware C ourt of C hancery and s tate suprem e court, losing at eac h level befo re turning to fed eral court. Lock lear alleged that his fed eral constitutional civil rights we re violated by a state tax l ien encumbering his property and the garnis hment of his wages, and asked the Distri ct Court to enjoin t he lie n and the garnishment until a s ettl ement acceptabl e to him coul d be worked out. The val idit y of t he tax debt

is not disput ed. The Director

of Revenue moved to dismi ss the c omplaint , and, in an order entere d on April 28, 2003, the Distri ct Court gr anted the motion. Locklear appe als, and has fil ed
a mo tion in th is Co urt see king the sam e injun ctive re lief he soug ht in the Distric t Cou rt. We will affi rm. We agree with the Dist rict Court that

princi ples of comi ty and the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, applyhere and prohibited t he court f

rom interfering i n the State of Delaware’s e fforts to coll ect a val id tax de bt. The Tax Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoi ning “the assess ment, l evy or colle ction of an y tax und er State law” wh ere state law p rovid es a “p lain, spe edy and effic ient”
rem edy. See Kerns v. Dukes , 153 F.3d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1998) (addressing t he adequacie s3

of D elaw are’s re med ies). Th e reco rd of Loc klear’s state ad minis trative ap peals establ ishes wit

hout a doubt t

hat he had a pl ain, speedy and effici ent remedyto pursue for his c laim s, inc lud ing his d ue p roc ess c laim und er th e Fo urte enth Am end me nt. Id. at 10 3. We have fully con sidere d Lo cklea r’s argu men ts to the c ontrar y and fin d them lackin g in merit. The stat e remedies are not de fici ent so as to enabl e Locklear to proceed i n federal court merely because he fail ed to use the remedies properly and/or suffered adverse dec ision s in s tate c our t. See Sachs Brother s Loan Co. v. Cunningham , 578 F.2d 172, 175 (7 th Cir. 1978) (“[T]he t axpaye r’s fa ilure to win in s tate court or to use t he remedy properl y does not negat e the exi stence of a remedy .”) We will af firm th e ord er dism issing th e com plaint. T he m otion L ockle ar filed in this C ourt fo r injunc tive relief is den ied as m oot.