FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 14, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 40 3

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :0 9- cv -0 06 52 -MM H-JB T

W ILLIAM R. TINNERMAN,
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt - App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 14 , 20 12 )
Befo re MAR CUS, PRYOR a nd SILER, Cir cu it Ju dg es
. *

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation.PER CURI AM:

W ill ia m T inn er

m an ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s qu ie t ti tl e act ion

ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es rel at ed to a fed era l t a x l i e n im po se d on Tin ne rm an ’s

pe rs on al pr op ert y
. The pr op ert y s u bjec t to th e go ve rn m en t’s ta x li en is al l of th e
is su ed an d o ut st an di ng sh ares of s to ck in a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, St . Aug us ti ne Sel fSt or ag e, In c., whi ch is so le ly own e d by Tin ne rm an
. The li en is fo r th e pu rp os e of

co ll ect io n of Tin ne rm an ’s un pa id in co m e ta x li ab il it ie s fo r th e 19 99 -2 00 2 ta x y ears , ad di ti on al ta x pe na lt ie s fo r th os e y ears , an d pe na lt ie s im po se d fo r fil in g fri vo lo us ta x

ret ur ns for th e 1 99 6- 19 98 tax y ears
. Tin ne rm an ’s qu ie t t i t l e s ui t ch al le ng es th e ta x li en on two fro nt s. Fi rs t,
Tin ne r man se ek s to in va li da te th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e’s (“ IRS” ) un de rlyin g

as se ss m en t of hi s ta x li ab il it y , al le gi ng , in te r al ia , th at IRS ag en ts la ck ed th e au th or it y

to ta ke cert ai n st ep s in th e as se ss m en t pr oc es s. Seco nd , Tin ne rm an cl ai m s th at th e

ta x li en it se lf was pr oc ed ur al ly de fic ie nt , be cau se th e no t i c e o f t a x li en fai le d to
cl earl y id en ti fy th e ki nd of ta x g iv in g ri se to th e li en an d was im pr op erl y fil ed

. On

ap pe al , Tin ne rm an ch al le ng es on ly th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e fir st pr on g of
hi s amend ed co m

pl ai nt

. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, an d ha vi ng th e be ne fit of or al arg um en t, we affi rm
. W e

2do so on th e ba si s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s th or ou gh an d well -rea so ne d op in io n of Mar ch

31 , 20 11

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at it la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti o n o v e r th e fir st pr on g of Tin ne rm an ’s ch al le ng e, be cau se Tin ne rm an
im pr op erl y us ed th e ve hi cl e of a qu ie t ti tl e act io n to “ c h a l l e ng e th e m eri ts of th e

un de rlyin g as se ss m en t,” an d th e fed e r al go ve rn m en t ha s no t waiv ed it s so ve rei gn
im m un it y wit h resp ect to su ch ch al le ng es . Sto eck li n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 43 F.2d 42 , 43 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). 1

AFFIRMED.

We note in passing tha t, although T innerman doe s not challeng e on appe al the district 1 court’s dismissal of the sec ond prong of his amende d complaint, we c an disce rn no er ror in the district court’s c onclusion that it retained jurisdiction over Tinnerman’ s challeng e to the proce dural va lidity

of the lien itself, see Stoecklin, 943 F.2d at 43, but that dismissal under F ed. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6) wa s appropr iate bec ause the notice of ta x lien attache d to the pleading s was fac ially valid and prope rly

filed, and the ref

ore Tinne rman fa iled to state a plausible c laim for relief . See Ashc roft v. I qbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
3