FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 14 38 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 04 87 -HLA-TEM CHARLES THOMAS STEVENS, in pro pr iape rs on a, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
vers us KEN COLT, of fic ia l capa ci ty as anem

pl oyee/R ev enue Offic er, a.k .a. K. Col t, JOHN HOOPES, of fic ia l capa ci ty as anem

pl oyee/R ev enue Offic er, JOHN 1 -1 0 DOES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Ch arl es Tho m as Ste ve ns , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l o f hi s m an da m

us pe ti ti on , whi chso ug htto co m pe l In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (IR S) Ag en ts Ken C ol t an d J oh n Ho op es to pro vi de do cum en ts supp orti ng th e Age nt s’ aut ho rit y

to fil e li en s an d l ev ie s o n S te ve ns ’ as se ts . On ap pe al , St ev en s co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s p et it io n was im pr op er be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adm an da m us juri sd ic ti onpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 1. Fu rth er, St ev en s cl ai m s the di st ric t co urt erredinfin di ng th atth e p ro hi bi ti on s i n th e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act an d fe de ral tax ex cep ti on inth e Decl arat ory Ju dg m en t Act ba rredhi s s ui t b ecau se hi s p et it io n d idno t s eekin jun ct iv e o r de cl arat ory

rel ie f. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. 1 To i nv ok e m an da m

us juri sd ic ti on , “ (1 ) th e p la in ti ff m us t h av e a cl ear r ig ht to th e rel ie f, (2 ) th e d efen da ntm us t h av e a cl ear dut y

to act , and(3) no ot he r ad equa te rem edy

m us t b e av ai labl e.” Jo nes v. Al exa nder , 60 9 F .2d77 8, 7 81 (5t h Ci r. 19 80 ). Furth er, the Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, 2 6 U.S.C. § 74 21 (a), p ro vi de s t ha t

“ no su itforth e p ur

po se of r es tra in in g t he ass es sm en t o r co ll ect io n o f an y tax sh al l be m ai nt ai ne d i n a ny cou rt b y an y pe rs on .” Sect io n 7 42 1 b ars no t o nl y su it s t ha t

Mandamus jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo revie w. Lifestar Ambulance 1 Serv., I nc. v. U nited States , 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 2di rect ly seekto res tra in th e as se ss m en t o r co ll ect io n o f ta xe s, b utals o s ui ts th at

se ekto res tra in IRS ac ti on s “ whi chare i nt en de d t o o r m ay cu lm in at e in th e
as se ss m en t o r co ll ect io n o f ta xe s.” Kemlon Pro ds . an d Dev . Co. v. Un it ed Stat es , 63 8 F .2d13 15 , 13 20 (5t h C ir.) , modif ie d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , 64 6 F .2d22 3 (5 th Cir
. 19 81 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . A com pl em en ta ry

pro vi si on is fou ndinth e Decl arat ory

Ju dg m en t Act , whi chdo es no t p erm itde cl arat ory jud gm en ts insu it s

“ with re sp ectto Fed eral tax es .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 20 1( a). Bec au se th e fed eral tax
ex cep ti on inth e Decl arat ory Ju dg m en t Actis at l eas t as bro adas t he Ant iIn jun ct io n Act , a de te rm in at io n tha t the Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act ap pl ie s al so for ecl os es de cl arat ory

rel ie f. Mob il e Rep ub li ca n As se mbl y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 35 3 F .3d13 57 , 13 62 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). St ev en s fa il edto de m on st rat e en ti tl em en t t o m an dam us rel ie f su ffi ci en t t o
su st ai n m an da m

us juri sd ic ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, he fai le d t o i de nt ify a clea r, no n- 2 di sc ret io na ry

du ty owedby Col t an d Ho op es to pro vi de Ste ve ns with d oc um en ts
supp orti ng th e n ot ic es of l ie n andlev y . Se e Jo nes , 60 9 F .2dat 7 81 . Mor eo ve r,

We note that the district court err ed by initially concluding Fe d. R. Civ. P. 81(b) prohibited 2 mandamus relief

. Although Rule 81(b) ab o lished the writ of mandamus, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides that fede ral courts “ma y i s s u e all writs nece ssary or appropriate in aid of their respe ctive jurisdictions and agree able to the usag es and principles of law.” Fur ther, it is wellestablished that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 confe rs orig inal jurisdiction over claims for mandamus relief and waives sovere ign immunity for this ty pe of action. Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exc h. Serv. , 619 F.2d 1132, 1140 ( 5th Cir. 1980), rev’ d on other grounds , 456 U.S. 728 (1982).

3th e Fre ed om of I nf orm at io n Act , 5 U.S.C. § 55 2( a)(4 )(B) , pro vi de d a n a lt ern at iv e
av enue of r el ie f, as itau th or iz es jud ic ia l re vi ew of anag en cy

de ci si on to withh ol d ag en cy reco rd s. Las tl y , th e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act b arre d S te ve ns ’ su itbe cau se hi s pe ti ti on co nt es ts th e v al id ity of t he no ti ces of t ax li enan d l ev y , whi chare IR S act io ns th atwil l cu lm in at e in th e co ll ect io n o f ta xe s. Se e Keml on Pro ds . an d Dev

. Co ., 63 8 F .2dat 1 32 0. Decl arat ory rel ie f is si mil arl y

for ecl os ed
. Se e Mo bi le Rep ub li ca n As se mbl

y , 35 3 F .3dat 1 36 2 n .6. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ct
co urt’s d is m is sa l o f St ev en s’ m an da m us pe ti ti on . AFFIRMED.

4