FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 51 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 34 14 -WSD STEVEN BELL , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an tll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt , vers us J.B . HUNT TRANSPORTATION, INC., anen te rp ris e aff

ect in g i nt ers ta te co m

m erce , KIRK THOMPSON, in di vi du al , JERRY WALTON, in di vi du al , JULIE DURROUGH, in di vi du al , RICH R IGGINS, in di vi du al , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- Co un te r-Cl ai m an ts ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Co un te r-Defe nd an ts -Ap pe ll ees , DOUGH STE WART, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: St ev enBel l, a t ax pro te st er, ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e d is m is sa l o f hi s pr o s e co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d fa il ur e to st at e a cl ai m for rel ie f. Bel l’s co m

pl ai ntfir stso ug htto reg is te r a d efau ltjud gm en t ag ai ns t h is fo rm er em

pl oyer, J.B. Hu ntTran sp orta ti on , Inc ., clai m in g t ha t an adm ira lt y tri bu na l h aden te reda jud gm en t i n h is fav or . The co m pl ai ntals o a ll eg edth atJ.B. Hun t an d s ix of i ts em

pl oyees wro ng fu ll y

wit hh el d fe de ral tax es fro m hi s wag es . To s up po rt t he se all eg at io ns , th e co m pl ai ntpu t fo rth sev eral arg um en ts as t o wh y Bel l was no t s ub

ject t o fe de ral tax at io n. Fu rth er, the co m pl ai ntbri efl y

m en ti on ed th atBel l was term in at edfro m J.B. Hu ntforop po si ng it s t ax -wit hh ol di ng po li ci es . The di stric t co urt d is m is se d fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on th e po rti onof t he co m

pl ai ntth atso ug htto reg is te r a fo rei gn jud gm en t, fi nd in g t ha t juri sd ic ti on was n otpro pe r un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 96 3. Th e co urt t he n d is m is se d t he
rem ai nd er o f th e co m

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , si nc e Bel l fa il edto off er 2an y

leg al au th or it y

supp orti ng hi s t ax -rel at edarg um en ts . Not ab ly, th e co urt’s op in io n d idno t s pe ci fic al ly addres s B el l’s al le ga ti on s co nc ern in g h is term in at io n. 1 On ap pe al , Bel l m ai nt ai ns th athe is no t s ub ject t o fe de ral tax at io n, an d
as se rts th atth e co urt erredin di sm is si ng hi s t ax -rel at edall eg at io ns forfai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m . He firs t ar gu es th atth e fed eral in co m e ta x app li es on ly to p ub li c em pl oyees, s in ce p riv at e em pl oyees a re n otex pl ic it ly lis te d i n the de fin it io n o f th e te rm “ em pl oyee” in 26 U.S.C. § 3 40 1( c). Sec on d, h e co nt en ds th atfed eral tax es are b as edon co ns en t, an d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h as no au th or it y to tax in di vi du al s un le ss th ey

fil l o utW -4 Fo rm s. Th ird , he a rg ue s tha t h is in co m e was no t

“ rep ortabl e,” b ecau se 26 U.S.C. § 3 40 6 re qu ire s o nl y th atanin di vi du al rep ort t he in te res t an d d iv id en ds earn edon hi s i nv es tm en ts . Furt he r, Bel l co nt en ds th atth e co urt i m pr op erl y refu se d t o c on si de r a p ro po se d a m en de d c om pl ai ntth athe fil ed ap pr ox im at el y

fou r m on th s af

te r hi s i ni ti al co m

pl ai nt . Becau se Bel l ar gu es th at th e d is tri ctco urt h addi ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , he e ss en ti al ly ass ert s a r ig htto reco ve r un de r Geo rg iaas we ll as f ed eral law. Bel l al so co nt in ue s t o a ss ertth athe was t erm in at edin res po ns e to hi s co m pl ai nt s ab ou t t ax wit hh ol di ng . For t he fir stti m e o n app eal , he s pe ci fic al ly

The c ourt also re fused to exerc ise supplemental jurisdiction over J.B. Hunt’s state- law 1 counter claims. J .B. Hunt has not cross-a ppeale d the dismissal of those claims. 3st at es th athi s t erm in at io n c on st itut edact io nabl e ret al ia ti onun de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”) , 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a). Be cau se Bel l i s pr oc eed in g pr o s e , we wil l co ns id er wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n in de cl in in g t o c on st ru e Bel l’s co m pl ai ntas r ai si ng a cl ai m

of r et al ia to ry di sc ha rg e. I. As an in it ia l m at te r, is su es no t b rie fedon ap pe al are d eem edab an do ne d,
ev enwhen th e ap pe ll an t i s p ro ceed in g pr o s e . Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 87 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . Accor di ng ly, Bel l h as ab an do ne d h is pre vi ou s o bjec ti on s t o se ve ral of t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng s, i nc lu di ng it s re fu sa l t o i m po se san ct io ns ag ai ns t J .B. Hun t an d i ts di sm is sa l o f a p orti on of h is co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t
m at te r juri sd ic ti on . He has als o aba nd on edsev eral ad di ti on al arg um en ts as t o wh y he was n otsubjec t t o t ax at io n. W e rev ie w de no vo a gr an t o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Sp ai n v . Bro wn &W

il li ams on To ba cco Co rp . , 36 3 F .3d11 83 , 11 87 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ). To wit hs ta ndsu ch m ot io ns , th e p la in ti ff m us t p le adsu ffi ci en t fa ct s t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face
. Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Tw omb ly , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 5 70 , 12 7 S .Ct. 1 95 5, 1 97 4, 1 67 L.Ed.2d92 9 (2 00 7) . “ [A] clai m ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty whe n t he pl ai nt iff pl ead s fa ctua l co nt en t t ha t al lo ws t he co urt t o d raw

4th e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.”

Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. _

_, 1 29 S.Ct . 19 37 , 19 49 , 17 3 L.Ed .2d86 8 (2 00 9) . In
co ns id eri ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s, co urts m us t g en eral ly accep t t he pl ai nt iff’s al le ga ti on s as tru e. His ho n v . Kin g & Sp aldi ng , 46 7 U.S. 6 9, 7 3, 1 04 S.Ct . 22 29 , 22 32 , 81 L.Ed.2d59 (19 84 ). Howev er, “ [c]on cl us ory all eg at io ns , un warra nt ed de du ct io ns of f

act s o r le ga l co nc lu si on s m as qu erad in g a s fa ct s wi ll no t p rev en t di sm is sa l.” Ja cks on v. Bell So uth T el eco mms. , 37 2 F .3d12 50 , 12 63 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ). A di st ric t co urt's di sc ret io n t o d is m is s a c om pl ai ntwitho utlea ve to am en d i s res tri ct edby Rul e 1 5( a)(2 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, whi ch di rect s th atlea ve to am en d “ sh al l b e fre el y gi ve n wh enjus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Ban k v. Pit t , 92 8 F .2d11 08 , 11 12 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ), ov er ru le d i n p ar t b y W agne r v. Da ewo o Hea vy In du s. Am. Co rp . , 31 4 F .3d54 1, 5 42 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) ( en ba nc ). In Ban k, we he ldth atdi st ric t co urts sh ou ldge ne ral ly gran t an op po rtu ni ty to am en d t he in it ia l co m

pl ai nt , eve n i f th e p la in ti ff d oe s n otreque stto do so , “ [w]here i t ap pe ars
a m or e car efu ll y

dra fte d c om

pl ai ntm ig htst at e a cl ai m up onwhi ch rel ie f can be gr an te d.” Id
. Altho ug h we s ub se qu en tl y ov erru le d Ban k whi le si tt in g en ba nc , we ex pr es sl y li m it edou r ho ld in g t o p la in ti ffs rep res en te d b y co un se l. W

agne r , 31 4 F.3 d a t 5 42 & n .2.
5The fed eral in co m e ta x app li es to anin di vi du al ’s “ ta xabl e in co m e,” wh ic h

in cl ud es an y

co m pe ns at io n d eri ve d fr om

th e p erfo rm an ce o f se rv ic es . Se e 26 U.S.C. §§ 61 (a)( 1) an d 6 3( a). The Int ern al Rev en ue Co de (“ Tax Co de ”) re qu ire s em pl oyers t o wi th ho ldin co m e ta x fr om th ei r em pl oyees’ wage s. 2 6 U.S.C. § 3 40 2. Fo r pu rp os es of t he Tax C od e, “ th e te rm ‘ em pl oyee’ in cl udes anoff

ic er, em pl oyee, or e le ct edoff

ic ia l o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, a St at e, oran y po li ti cal
subd iv is io n t he reo f, orth e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a, oran y

ag en cy or i ns tru m en ta li ty of an y on e o r m or e o f th e fo reg oi ng .” 26 U.S.C. § 3 40 1( c) (e m ph as is ad de d)
. Im po rta nt ly, th e wor d “ ‘inc lu de s’ . . . sh al l n otbe de em edto ex cl ud e o th er t hi ng s ot he rwis e wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e te rm de fin ed .” 26 U.S.C. § 7 70 1. Inord er t o a ss is t em

pl oyers wi th th ei r wit hh ol di ng ob li ga ti on s, t he Tax Co de pro vi de s t ha t ea ch em pl oyee “sh al l

furni sh [hi s] em

pl oyer wit h asi gn ed wit hh ol di ng ex em

pt io n c ert ifi cat e rel at in g t o t he nu m be r of wit hh ol di ng ex em pt io ns whi chhe cla im s.” 2 6 U.S.C. § 34 02 (em ph as is ad de d) . The Trea su ry Reg ul at io ns ex pl ai n t ha t “ Fo rm W -4 is th e fo rm

pre sc rib edfor

th e wit hh ol di ng ex em pt io n c ert ifi cat e re qu ir ed to be fil edun de r se ct io n 3 40 2( f)(2 )” o f th e Tax Co de . Treas . Reg . § 3 1.3 40 2( f)(5 )-1 (a). Und er Geo rg ialaw, a p la in ti ff s ui ng forco nv ers io n m us t es tabl is h tha t t he de fen da nten ga ge d i n “ anun au th or iz edass um pt io n a ndex erci se of t he rig htof
6own ers hi p o ve r [the pl ai nt iff’s] pe rs on al pro pe rty.” Deca tu r Au to Cen te r v.

W ac ho vi a Ba nk

, N.A. , 58 3 S .E.2d6, 7 (Ga. 20 03 ). In o rd er t o e st ab li sh act io nabl e frau d, a p la in ti ff m

us t s ho w th athe ha s b een da m ag edby a frau du le nt
m is rep res en ta ti on . Bro ok s v. Di me Sa v. Ban k o

f Ne w Y ork, FSB , 45 7 S .E.2d70 6, 70 8 (Ga . App . 19 95 ). Bel l’s ar gu m en ts are co m pl et el y un supp orte d b y

th e Tax Co de . The fed eral in co m e ta x i s a l eg al ob li ga ti on ex te nd in g t o a ll in di vi du al s wh o p erfo rm servi ces fo r co m pe ns at io n, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th ei r em pl oym en t i s p ub li c o r pr iv at e. Acco rd in gl y , Bel l’s cl ai m s—un de r bo th st at e an d fe de ral law— co ul d n otha ve be enrem ed ie d b y

a m or e car efu ll y

dra fte d c om

pl ai nt , andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err i n d is m is si ng th e co m pl ai ntwit ho ut gr an ti ng lea ve to am en d.

II.

“ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s tand ardth anpl ead in gs dra fte d by att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con stru ed .” Box er X v. Harris , 43 7 F.3 d 1 10 7, 1 11 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Howev er, the ob li ga ti on to li be ral ly con st ru e a pr o s e pl ead in g “ is no t t he equi va le ntof adu ty to re -wri te itfor th e p la in ti ff.” Sn ow v. Dir ect

TV, Inc
. , 45 0 F .3d13 14 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (al te rat io n o m it te d)
. Fu rth er, an erro r by the di st ric t co urt d oe s n otco ns ti tu te gro un ds forrev ers al
un le ss itaffe ct eda pa rty’ s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 61
. 7Tit le VII es tabl is he s t ha t i t i s an “un la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e” t o di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an em pl oyee on th e b as is of “ race , col or , rel ig io n, s ex , or
na ti on al ori gi n.” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a). Itals o p ro hi bi ts ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t an
em pl oyee be cau se he ha s “ op po se d . . . an u nl awfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e”
co ve redby the st atut e. 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -3 (a). Be fo re s ui ng un de r Tit le VII, a pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b y fil in g ati m el y

ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n wi th th e EEOC. W il ker so n v . Gri nn el l Co rp . , 27 0 F .3d13 14 , 13 17 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. The Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh t t o fr ee s pe ech in cl ud es th e ri gh t n otto be ret al ia te d a ga in ston th e b as is of p ro te ct edsp eech
. Se e Ca st le v. App al ac hi an Tech ni ca l Co ll eg e , 63 1 F .3d11 94 , 11 97 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The Fi rs t Am en dm en t do es no t ap pl y

to pri va te pa rti es , ho wev er, u nl es s t ho se pa rti es ha ve en ga ge d i n

“ st at e act io n.” Far es e v. S ch er er , 34 2 F .3d12 23 , 12 34 n.1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. Mo reo ve r, su it s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 are l im it edto act io ns m ad e u nd er co lo r of la w, andth us can no t re ach pu rel y pri va te co nduc t. Foc us on th e Fami lyv. Pin el la s S

un co as t Tr an si t Au th
. , 34 4 F .3d12 63 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re ad in g t he co m pl ai ntso as no t t o i nc lu de a cl ai m

forret al ia to ry

di sc ha rg e, si nc e itdi d n otpro m in en tl y rai se th atis su e. Mo reo ve r, th e co m pl ai ntsp eci fic al ly stat edth atitwas “ so le ly dire ct ed

8atth e m al ic io us m is ap pl ie d p ro vi si on s o f [the fed eral in co m e] tax , wron gf ul ly and
un la wfu ll y

tak in g o f pr iv at e p ro pe rty for p ub li c u se .” Fin al ly, ev enif t he co urt ha d c on st ru edth e co m

pl ai ntto rai se a cl ai m

forret al ia to ry

di sc ha rg e u nd er Tit le VII, § 1 98 3, o r an y

ot he r fed eral law, t he cla im wou ldha ve be enleg al ly
un supp orte d. AFFIR MED.

9