United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted January 7, 2020*

Decided January 9, 2020 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3460 

SIMEON WASHA AMEN RA, 

a/k/a SIMEON LEWIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 14-cv-8295 

John Z. Lee, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Simeon Washa Amen Ra, who describes himself as “an indigenous inhabitant 

traveler” and “One of We the People,” believes that the Internal Revenue Service has 

unlawfully garnished his wages and imposed liens on his property to collect unpaid 

penalties assessed after he filed numerous frivolous income-tax returns. He sued the 

IRS under assorted federal statutes. The district court concluded that Amen Ra’s claims 

were barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-3460 Page 2 

jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that the doctrine of sovereign immunity 

bars Amen Ra’s claims and affirm. 

This is not the first time Amen Ra has sought to stop the IRS from collecting 

unpaid taxes and penalties. Several years ago, he brought a similar action against his 

employer regarding the same assessment. We upheld the dismissal of that action on 

grounds that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), precluded the district court 

from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over claims intended to thwart the collection 

of income tax. See Lewis v. BNSF Ry. Co., 671 F. App’x 386, 387 (7th Cir. 2016). 

Characterizing the appeal as frivolous, we warned Amen Ra that further litigation of 

this kind may subject him to sanctions. Id. at 387. 

Amen Ra nevertheless returned to federal court, maintaining that the IRS 

violated several tax-code provisions when it levied his wages and filed a lien against his 

assets—all without holding a hearing. Amen Ra sought relief under an array of federal 

tax statutes—including 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330, 7214, 7422, 7426, 7433—and constitutional 

provisions. 

The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As the court 

explained, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a condition of the federal 

government’s waiver of sovereign immunity for suits regarding unauthorized tax 

collection, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a), 7433(d)(1), and it was apparent from the face of 

Amen Ra’s complaint that he did not file the forms necessary for exhaustion. 

On appeal, Amen Ra first challenges the district court’s conclusion that sovereign 

immunity precludes his suit because “sovereignty resides not in the government, but in 

the [p]eople.” But the district court correctly concluded that sovereign immunity 

precluded Amen Ra’s claims. The exclusive remedy for challenging wrongful tax 

collection is through § 7433, so Amen Ra’s constitutional arguments are barred. 

See Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 111–14 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Cameron 

v. I.R.S., 773 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1985)). And though the government waives 

immunity under § 7422 and § 7433 to allow taxpayers to recoup wrongfully collected 

taxes and recover damages if IRS employees violate the tax code, Amen Ra needed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies for that waiver to attach. See §§ 7422(a), 7433(d)(1); 

Goldberg v. United States, 881 F.3d 529, 532–33 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1564 

(2018). Because Amen Ra did not exhaust his remedies, the district court correctly 

dismissed the complaint. See Goldberg, 881 F.3d at 532–33; Gray v. United States, 723 F.3d 

795, 798 (7th Cir. 2013).
No. 18-3460 Page 3 

Amen Ra also generally challenges the district court’s conclusion that it lacked 

jurisdiction to consider his remaining claims. Regarding his claim that the IRS violated 

26 U.S.C. § 6330 by failing properly to notify him of the levy, the district court correctly 

determined that this claim is justiciable only by the Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6330(d); Voelker v. Nolen, 365 F.3d 580, 581 (7th Cir. 2004). As for his claims regarding 

two other tax-collection statutes, 26 U.S.C. § 7214 and § 7426, the court also correctly 

concluded that Amen Ra lacked standing to sue. The former is a criminal statute that 

does not include a private right of action, see Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 

(10th Cir. 2007), and the latter authorizes only “persons other than taxpayers” to sue to 

challenge a wrongful levy, 26 U.S.C. § 7426; see also Frierdich v. United States, 985 F.2d 

379, 380, 382–83 (7th Cir. 1993). 

 The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant Amen Ra is sanctioned $4,000 for 

filing a frivolous tax appeal. See Szopa v. United States, 460 F.3d 884, 887 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Within 14 days of the date of this order, Amen Ra must tender a check payable to the 

clerk of this court for the full amount of the sanction. If Amen Ra fails to pay the 

sanction by the due date, we will enter an order directing the clerks of all federal courts 

in this circuit to return unfiled any papers submitted by him or on his behalf unless and 

until he pays the sanction in full. Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186–87 

(7th Cir. 1995). If such an order restricting Amen Ra’s filings is imposed, Amen Ra may 

move to modify it after two years. Id.