Th e Un ite d St ate s arg ue s th at it is t he on ly pr op e r p art

y de fe nd ant. Th e Un ite d St a te s is 1 corr ect. See Murphy v . I.R.S. , 493 F.3d 170, 174 ( D.C. Cir. 2007). There fore , the cour t dismiss es the c ase w ith respec t to all of the other de fenda nts and will refe r to the United States as the def endant throughout this m emora ndum opinion. RODNEY K . JUSTIN,

P la in t if f,
v. UNITED STAT ES, et al.,

De fend ant s. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Ci vi l A cti on 07 -02 33 4 (H HK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Ina r am b l i n g p ro l i x co mp l ai n t , R o dn ey K. J u s t i n , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , asser ts various
cause s of ac tion ag ainst the United States, the De partment of the Trea sury , the Interna l Revenue Service , the Depa

rtment of Just ice, thre e identified individuals in their off icial ca pacity and five unidentified individuals. J ustin charg es that the United States unlaw fully issued administrative 1 summonses and unlawfully seeks to prose cute him. He a lso contends that seve ral provisions of the Interna l Revenue Code (“I RC”), 26 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. , are unconstitutionally vague and have no t y e t be e n e na c te d b y Con g re ss. F ina lly , Just in c la ims tha t th e Con sti tut ion

and Con g re ss do no t a uth or ize the Inte rn a l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e to a dmi nis te r t he int e rn a l r e ve nu e laws . Just in seeks de clar atory

and injunctive re lief under the Administrative Proce dure A ct (“ APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq . Be fore the cour

t is the moti on of the United States to dismiss J ustin’s complaint for lac k of su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n a nd fo r f a ilure to s tate a

c la im und e r F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l2

Procedur e 12(b) (1) a

nd 12(b)( 6) [#7] . Upon consider ation of the motion, the opposition thereto, and the r ecor d of this case , the cour t concludes that the motion mus t be g rante d.

I. This action ar ises out of a levy place d on J ustin’s income and a subsequent cr iminal investigation of and cha

rg e made ag ainst him for his alleg ed fa ilure to pay taxes between 1997
and 20 04 . Just in c ha lle ng e s b oth the Un ite d St ate s’ a c tio ns wi th r e sp e c t to him and the va lid ity of the int e rn a l r e ve nu e laws . T he c ourt wi ll f ir st a dd re ss Jus tin ’s c ha lle ng e s to the Un ite d St a te s’
a c t i o n s i n d i v i d

u a l l y, an d th e nh i s c h a l l e n g e s t o th e v a l i d i ty o f i n t e r n a l r e v e nu e l aw s j o i n t l y. J ustin first challeng es the United States’ issuance of administrative summonses to third parties to obtain his financ ial rec ords under the APA. The United States argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over Jus tin’s challeng e bec ause its sovere ign immunity has not bee n waived f or APA suits challeng ing a n administrative summons. I nstead, the United States argues that so ve re ig n immun ity

is w a ive d, pe rm itt ingsu its to c ha lle ng e a dmi nis tr a tiv e summo ns e s, purs ua nt t o 2 6 U .S. C. § 76 09 , a

nd that Just in h a s ava ile d h ims e lf of that r e me dy

in a no the r s uit

in which his claims wer e dismissed. The United States is cor rec t. The APA doe s not confer “author ity

to gr ant re lief if any

other statute that g rants conse nt to suit ex pressly

or impliedly

forbids the re lief which is soug ht.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Moreover , “Cong ress ha s prese rved the immunit y of the United States f

rom dec laratory

and injunctive re lief with respec t to all tax controve rsies” e x cept in spec ific instance s. Murphy , 493 F.3d at 174. Her e, Cong ress ha s cre ated a specific mecha

nism for cha lleng ing a dminist rative summonses, of which Just in has ava iled himself. See J ustin v. United States , 2 00 6 WL 49 72 19 , at *1 (W. D. N. C. J anuar y 5, 2006). Ther efor e, the c ourt conc ludes that the APA does not cr eate a ca use of a ctionMoreove r, eve n if J ustin’s claim that the issuance of the summonses was unla wful had 2 been pr operly

broug ht, this court would not have subjec t matter jurisdiction beca use this is not the judicial district in which the third-pa rty rec ordkee pers a

re loc ated. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h); McCammon v . United States , 584 F. Supp. 2d 193, 198 (D.D .C. 2008). 3 for Justi n to challeng e the issuanc e of the administrative summonses. See Murphy , 493 F.3d at 17 4; see also Holt v. Dav idson , 441 F. Supp. 2d 92, 96 (D.D .C. 2006) (holding that “an a ction broug ht under the A PA is barre d if it conce rns the asse ssment or collec tion of fede ral taxes”). 2 J ustin nex t alleg es that the United States’ prosec ution of him is unl awf ul beca use it beg an befor e he w as issued a N otice of D efic iency for tax y ear s 2001-2004 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 62 13 (a ). He a lle g e s th at “ [d]e fe nd ants ne ve r a sse sse d a ny ta x or c a us e d a no tic e and

de mand to pay any tax i mposed . . . prior to empa nelling [sic] the Grand Jury investigation and seeking prosec ution.” Compl. ¶ 43. The United States re joins that J ustin’s claim is unfounded, attac hing of fi c ia l r e c or ds sh ow ingthe ta x ass e ssm e nts , D e f. ’s Re ply to P l.’ s O pp ’n

to D e f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss Ex . 1, and ar g ues that Jus tin’s claim is barre d by the Anti-Injunction Act. Section 6213(a) states that “no levy or proc eedingin court . . . [for collec tion of income tax] shall be made, be g un, or prose cuted until [a notice of def iciency] has been mailed to the taxpay er” and a 90-day period ha s elapsed. 26 U .S.C. § 6213(a). “N otwithstanding the pr ovisions of section 74 21 (a ) [the Anti- Inju

nc tio n A c t], the
. . . b e g inn ingof su c h p ro c e e din g or

le vy duri ngthe tim e such prohibition is in force ma y be enjoined by

a proc eedingin the proper court . . . .” Id
. Whil e the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar J ustin’s second count, this count must stil l be dis mis se d. Justi n d oe s n ot a lle g e fa c ts o r p ro vid e do c ume ntatio n s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his alleg ation that a Notice of De ficienc y was not issued, and me rely states that it was not issued in a conclusory

manner . See M

artens v. United States , 2007 WL2007580, at *5 n.6 (D.D .C. 2007)4

(h o l d i n g th atex ce p t i o n s t o th e A n t i -Inj un ct i o nAc td i d n o tap p l y b ec au s e p l ai n t i ff

s d i d n o tal l ege
a fa c tua l ba sis to s up po rt

the ir c on c lus or

y a lle g a tio ns ); Lindsey v. United States , 448 F. Supp. 2d 37, 58 n. 13 (D.D.C. 2006) ( same). T here fore , the cour t dismi sses this count for fa ilure to state a claim under

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6). See Be ll A tl. Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 1 27 S.Ct
. 19 55 , 1 96 4- 65 (2 00 7) (“ a pla int if f’ s o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide the ‘gro un ds ’ o f h is ‘ e nti tle [me nt] t o
re lie f’ re qu ir e s mo re tha

n la be ls a nd c on c lus ion s . . . . F a c tua l a lle g a tio ns mus t be e no ug h to raise a rig ht of relief

above the speculative level.”) (interna l citations omit ted). Justi n’ s r e ma ini ngc ounts a lle g e tha t va ri ou s inte rn a l r e ve nu e laws are inv a lid be c a us e they are unconstitutionally

vague or ha

ve not y et bee n enac ted by Congr ess, and that the I

nterna l Revenue Service is not authorized to adminis ter the inter nal re venue la

ws. J ustin seeks injunctive and dec laratory relief . The United States a

rgues that these c ounts are a ll barre d by the Dec laratory

J udg ment Act and the Anti-Injunction Act, which ba r dec laratory

and injunctive relief with respec t to feder al taxes. J ustin does not defend his re quest for de clar atory relief , but argues that his reque sts for injunctive re lief fa ll within an ex ception to the Anti-Injunction Act outlined in Enochs v. W

illiams Packaging &Navigation Co. , 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962). Just in’s
argume nt i s w ith out me ri t. Th e De c la

rator y Judg me nt A c t st a te s th at a de c lara tor y a c tio n c ann ot b e br ou g ht “ wi th respe ct to Fe dera l tax es other tha n actions broug ht under sec tion 7428 of the Interna l Revenue Code [pertaining to tax exempt st atus].” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Anti-Injunction Act states that “no suit for the pur

pose of r estrainingthe assessment or collection of a

ny tax s hall be maintained in any

court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). It “extends not only to the assessment or c ollection of taxes, but also the entire pr ocess involved in enf orcingthe re venue5

laws.” Jeric ho Painting & Special Coating, Inc. v. R ichardson , 8 38 F . Su pp . 6 26 , 6 29 (D .D .C. 1993). The Supre me Court has re cog nized a narr ow exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, stating that a suit for a

n injunction may

be maintained if

(1) unde r no circ umstances c ould the g overnme nt preva il, and (2) e quity jurisdiction otherwise exists. See E nochs , 370 U.S. at 7. “Only if it is . . . appare nt [ at the time of the suit] that, under the most liberal view of the law a nd the fa cts, the United States ca nnot establish its claim, may the suit for an injunction be maintained.” Id . This exception is “ex tremely narr ow.” Spence r v. Brady , 700 F. Supp. 601, 60 4 ( D. D. C. 1 98 8) . T he burd e n is on the pla int if

f t o d e mon str a te tha

t hi s su it f

a lls wi thi n th is exception. Bowers v. United States , 423 F.2d 1207, 1208 ( 5th Cir. 1970). Justi n h a s n ot a lle g e d a

ny fa c ts that de mon str a te tha t th e Un ite d St a te s c ann ot p re va il under a ny circ umstances. See Lindsey , 4 48 F . Su pp . at 59 -6 0 ( c on sid e ri nga mot ion to d ism iss and holding that plaintiffs’ asse rtion that the United States could not re but its claims was not enoug h to show that the Enochs exception applied). More over, Justi n could have paid the taxes he alleg edly

owed a nd then cha lleng ed their unde rlying va lidity in a re quest for a

ref und; thus, an alternative form of r elief e x ists. See E rwin v. United States , 2 00 6 WL 26 60 29 6, a t *9 (D .D .C. September 15, 2006) (conc luding, in a c ase where plaintiffs soug ht to enjoin both civil and criminal prose cution, that paying the taxes alleg edly owed a nd then claiminga re fund provided the plaintiffs with an a dequate form of a lternative r elief) . There fore , the nar row Enochs exception does not apply

to this case, and a ll of J ustin’s remainingcounts for injunctive a nd decla ratory relief must be dismis sed.6 II. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e c ourt c on c lud e s th a t th e mot ion of the Un ite d St a te s should be g rante d and Just in’s complaint should be dismissed. An appropriate orde r
acc ompanies this memorandum opinion. Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge