2009 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
3-25-2009 

# U S A v . S chi a ffino
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 . 07-3329

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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_2009

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 2009 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

" U SA v . S chi a ffino " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1696. 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_2009/1696NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT
No. 07-3329
UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. J OSEPH P. S CHIAFF I

NO, Appellant
On Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-02194) Di stric t Judg e : H on or a

ble Rob e rt

F . K e lly
Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 21, 2008

Sur Panel Rehea

ringSubmit ted July

2, 2008 Be fore : AMBRO, F UENTES and F I SHER, Ci rcuit Judges

(Opinion filed: Marc h 25, 2009)

OPI NI ON
PER C URIAM Jose phP. Sc hia ff

ino a pp e a ls f ro m th e Di stric t Co ur

t’ s o rd e rs that de nie d h is m oti on to
rema nd this matter to state court a nd grante d the motion to dis miss filed by the United States. W e w i l l af

fi rmi np art , v ac at e i np art , an d re m an d t o th e D i s tri ctC o urtfo r f urth er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion.2

Schiaffino a lleg es that he r ece ived a Noticeof F eder al Tax L ien from the I nterna l Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2005. He also a lleg es that he immediate ly challeng ed the va lidity

of the tax li en by

“filing ” an “ Affida

vit of Non-L iability” and se nding a “Presumptive Notice ” and an “A ffidavit of Tr

uth” to the two I RS age nts who had signed the Notice . After rec eivingno response , he filed a

“Petition for Rule to Show Cause” in the Court of Common Pleas of B ucks County , r e qu e sti ngthat th e c ourt dir e c t th e Un ite d St ate s to sh owc a us e why the tax lie n “ sh ou ld not be nullified and re moved from the Court’ s rec ords.” The United States remove d the Petition for Rule to Show Cause to the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Pe nn sylva

nia purs ua nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 14 42 (a)( 1) . T he Un ite d St ate s th e n f ile d a mot ion to dismiss the petition for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)( 1). Schiaff

ino did not file a response in oppositi on to that motion. Instead, he filed a motion to remand the matter to state court, in which he challeng ed the r emoval proc edure s followed by

the United States. By order enter ed on Jul y

5, 2007, the District Court grante d the motion to dis miss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. The District Court also issued a sepa rate order denying the motion to remand the matter to state c ourt. Schiaff ino appea ls from those orde rs. We have jurisdiction
ov e r t he a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 12 91 . O ur re vie w i s p le na

ry . Umla nd v. PLAN CO Financ ial Service s, 542 F.3d 59, 63 (3d Cir. 2008)
. Schiaffino a

rgues on appe al that this matter was imprope rly remove d beca

use the United State s w a s d e signate d a s th e pla int if f i n th e state c ourt

a c tio n a nd , th e re fo re , la c ke d a

uth ority to
remove this matter to the District Court. The manne r in which the pa rties wer e identified in the state c ourt

c a pti on is n ot r e le va

nt t o th e qu e sti on

wh e the r t he Pe tit ion

fo r R ule to S ho w C a

us eS c h iaf f in o m a yh a v e id e n tifie d th e p a rties a s h e d id in h is “ P e tit io n f o r R u le to 1 Show C aus e” be caus e he vi ew s hi m s el f as t he “de fenda nt ” i n s t at e cour t bas ed upon t he f ili n g o f th e n o tice o f

f e d e ra l tax lien in th a t co u rt. B eca us e of t hi s w ai ver of s over ei gn i m m uni t y , w e det er m i ned t hat t he D i s t r i ct 2 C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n to h e a r th e a c tio n , w h ich h a d b e e n b ro u g h t in th e D istric t C o u rt, under § 2410 i n combi nat i on w i t h 28 U
. S. C
. § 1340. 539 F. 2d at 940. Sect i on 1340 pr ovi des t he di s t r i ct cour t s w i t h “or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on of anyci vi l act i on ar i s i ng under any A ct of C ongr es s pr ovi di ng for i nt er nal r evenue . ” 3 wa s p ro pe rl y

re mov e d to the Di stric t Co ur t. It is c le ar f

ro m th e pe tit ion

that Sc hia ff

ino fi le d in 1 state c ourt

that he is c onte sti ngthe va lid ity of a fe de ra l tax lie n. Th e Un ite d St ate s p ro pe rl y
remove d the Petition for Rule to Show Cause to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1).
The que stion we confr ont, then, is whether the District Court erre d in dismi ssing Schiaffino’ s Petiti on for Rule to Show Cause. The United States argues that the District Court pr op e rl y dis mis se d th e c a seon

the ba sis of

the g ov e rnme nt’ s so ve re ign immun ity . It is we ll
e sta bli sh e d th at th e Un ite d St ate s ma y no t be su e d w ith out it s c on se nt. Un ite d St ate s v . M itc he ll, 44 5 U .S. 53 5, 53 8 ( 19 80 ) ( c iti ngUn ite d St ate s v . Sh e rw oo d, 31 2 U .S. 58 4, 58 6 ( 19 41 )) . Apa rt y suing the fede ral g overnme nt bear s the burden of establishing that the United States has
un e qu ivo c a lly

wa ive d it s immun ity

fr om s uit . B ake r v . Unit e d St ate s, 81 7 F .2 d 5 60 , 5 62 (9 th Cir. 1987), ce rt. denied, 487 U .S. 1204 (1988). In h is Pe tit ion

fo r R ule to S ho w C a

us e , Sc hia ff

ino a sse rt s a

de nia l of his du e pr oc e ss ri ghts in c onne c tio n w iththe fi lin gof theno tic e of

fe de ra l tax lie n. We h ave he ld t hat 28 U. S.C. § 2410 constitutes a waive r of sove reign immunity to an ac tion brought by

a taxpayer a g ainst the United States cha lleng ing the validity of a f eder al tax li en, provide d that the plaintiff re fra ins from collate rally

attackingthe merits of the tax assessment. Aqua B ar &L oung e v. United 2In re a c h in g th is c o n c lu sio n , w e w e re m in d f u l th a t pro se fi l i ngs ar e t o be 3 cons t r ued l i ber al l y . See H ai nes v. K er ner , 404 U
. S. 519, 520 ( 1972)
. W e expr es s no o p in io n a s to w h e th e r S c h ia f f in o ’s p e titio n m e e ts th e re q u ir e m e n ts in § 2 4 1 0 (b ). W e do not s ugges t t hat § 2410 i s t he s ol e s t at ut e upon w hi ch a w ai ver of 4 s over ei gn i m m uni t y coul d be pr edi cat ed, l eavi ng t hat i s s ue fort he par t i es and t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt o n re m a n d
. 4 States, 539 F.2d 935, 939-40 ( 3d Cir. 1976); see a lso Kabakjian v. United States, 267 F.3d 208, 211-12 (3d Cir. 2001) ( exis tence of fe dera l tax liens vested district cour t with jurisdiction under § 2410 to hear

quiet title claim). Section 2410(a) provides that the United States ma y be name d a party “in any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any

State court having jurisdiction of the su bje c t matte r –

(1 ) t o q uie t ti tle to, (2 ) t o f

or e c los e a mor tg a g e or oth e r l ie n u

po n, (3 ) t o pa rt iti on , ( 4) to c on de mn, . . . r e a l or pe rs on a l pr op e rt

y on wh ic h th e Un ite d St ate s h a s o r c la ims a mortg ag e or othe r lien.” 28 U .S.C. § 2410(a). As his claim appe ars to fa ll within the ty pes of actions included in § 2410(a), Schiaff ino’s Petition for Rule to S how Cause a rguably seeks r elief
un de r t hat st atut e . On

the re c or d b e fo reus , w e c an n ot s ay that th e Di stric t Co ur

t pr op e rl y 3 dis mis se d th is pro se matter on the ba sis of sovere ign immunity . Acc ording ly , we will re mand this matter for f

urther c onsideration of the question of sovere ign immunity and, if ne cessa

ry , a deter mination whether the state cour t had subject matter

jurisdiction. See Ruhrg as AG v. Maratho n O il Co ., 52 6 U .S. 57 4, 58 4 ( 19 99 ) ( “ Ste e l Co . [v. Citi zen s f or a B e tte r E nv ir onme nt, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)] does not dictate a se quencingof jurisdictional issues.”). I f the District Court de te rm ine s u

po n r e mand

that c on sid e ratio n o f S c hia ff ino ’s Pe tit ion

fo r R ule to S ho w C a

us e is barr ed by sovere ign immunity , the District Court must dism iss the petition. Stapleton v. 4 $2,438,110, 454 F.2d 1210, 1218 ( 3d Cir.), ce rt. denied, 409 U .S. 894 (1972). Havingconclude d that remova l under § 1442(a) wa s proper , we will af firm the District5

Court’s order

that denied Schiaf

fino’s motion to remand. As it appe ars that this matter may not be ba rr e d b y so ve re ign immun ity , w e wi ll v a c ate the Di stric t Co ur t’ s o rd e r gra

nti ngthe mot ion

to dis mis s f ile d b y the Un ite d St ate s and

wi ll r e mand

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s opinion.