Opinion ID: 689670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Quiet Title

Text: 7 In addition, Rotzinger appeals the district court's denial of his motion to quiet title. Rotzinger seeks to contest unspecified erroneous, fictitious, and frivolous tax assessments against him and Rotzinger Enterprises and dissolve any liens that may be imposed upon his property. Motion for Quieting Title, R. 32. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410, Rotzinger may maintain an action to quiet title against the United States 6 if he set[s] forth with particularity the nature of the interest or lien of the United States. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410(b). To contest a tax lien, the complaint must also include the identity of the internal revenue office which filed the notice [of the tax lien], and the date and place such notice of lien was filed. Id. Rotzinger, however, provides none of this information. Thus, his motion does not sufficiently state a claim under Sec. 2410. See Clark v. United States, 760 F.Supp. 664, 665 (W.D.Mich.1991); City Bank of Anchorage v. Eagleston, 110 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D.Alaska 1953). Finally, to the extent that Rotzinger seeks to enjoin the government from imposing future tax liens on his property, his action is barred by the anti-injunction act. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7421; Harrell, 13 F.3d at 235. Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Rotzinger's motion to quiet title. 7