Court Opinion

ID: 9963242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 20:01:00.348431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.891475
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11053    Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11053
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KATHLYN MOORE,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00395-CEM-DCI
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11053     Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 2 of 5

       2                     Opinion of the Court                23-11053

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kathlyn Moore brought claims against the United States for
       illegal tax collection. After allowing Moore to amend her
       complaint three times, the district court dismissed it. Because we
       agree that Moore’s claims are all barred, we affirm.
                                        I.
               Kathlyn Moore, proceeding pro se, filed claims against the
       United States alleging that the Internal Revenue Service conducted
       illegal tax collection when it took money out of her Social Security
       payments without notice. The government moved to dismiss,
       arguing that Moore’s requested relief was barred. The district
       court agreed, but it allowed Moore to amend her complaint. After
       Moore amended her complaint, the district court dismissed the
       case sua sponte because the parties failed to file a case management
       report pursuant to local rules. The court later reopened the case
       once Moore obtained counsel. Moore then filed a second amended
       complaint alleging that the government’s tax collection violated
       her due process rights and was otherwise negligent. Again, the
       government moved to dismiss, after which Moore’s counsel
       withdrew from the case.
               The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that
       Moore’s claims be dismissed, to which Moore objected. The
       district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
USCA11 Case: 23-11053         Document: 58-1        Date Filed: 04/24/2024         Page: 3 of 5

       23-11053                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       recommendation and dismissed Moore’s complaint.                        Moore
       appeals that dismissal. 1
                                             II.
              We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
       state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Georgia
       Ass’n of Latino Elected Offs., Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration
       & Elections, 36 F.4th 1100, 1112 (11th Cir. 2022). For this review,
       “we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe
       the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 1112–13.
       Pro se complaints should be construed liberally but still must
       comply with the procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
       106, 113 (1993).
                                             III.
              “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal
       Government and its agencies from suit.” King v. United States, 878
       F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). And for
       claims of illegal tax collection, Congress has specifically limited the
       remedy that courts can provide. The Anti-Injunction Act
       “prohibits courts from entertaining pre-enforcement suits

       1 Moore also brings various allegations of bias and prejudice she claims

       occurred throughout the litigation process. She specifically contests the denial
       of her motion to recuse against the district court judge and magistrate judge,
       and claims that the government violated the rules of professional conduct.
       These claims are frivolous as they are based primarily on conjecture and her
       dissatisfaction with judicial determinations in her case rather than any real
       evidence of bias or prejudice.
USCA11 Case: 23-11053      Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11053

       challenging the IRS’s assessment or collection of federal taxes.”
       Christian Coal. of Florida, Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1190
       (11th Cir. 2011); see 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). And the Declaratory
       Judgment Act, “which generally authorizes courts to issue
       declaratory judgments as a remedy, excludes federal tax matters
       from its remedial scheme.” Christian Coal., 662 F.3d at 1188–89; see
       28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). For certain claims requesting damages based
       on illegal tax collection, Congress has waived sovereign immunity
       and allowed such relief to be granted by courts—but only if a
       plaintiff has exhausted the available administrative remedies. 26
       U.S.C. § 7433(a), (d)(1). Exhaustion requires that a plaintiff send an
       administrative claim to the appropriate IRS office. Treas. Reg.
       § 301.7433-1(e)(1).
               Moore’s due process and negligence claims requesting
       injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages are all barred.
       To the extent that her claims request injunctive relief and
       declaratory judgment, they are barred by sovereign immunity.
       And even if they were not, the Declaratory Judgment Act and the
       Anti-Injunction Act would prohibit the district court from issuing
       these forms of relief. Sovereign immunity also bars Moore’s claims
       requesting damages because she failed to exhaust the
       administrative remedies. While Moore sent various letters to the
       IRS, none were sent to the appropriate IRS office and thus did not
       satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See id.
            In one last attempt, Moore requests that she be allowed to
       amend her complaint for a third time. Though courts should
USCA11 Case: 23-11053     Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-11053              Opinion of the Court                       5

       generally allow for amendment, that principle does not apply when
       amendment would be futile. Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d
       1255, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Moore has already been
       given three chances to amend her complaint, and she fails to
       explain in her briefing before this Court how she would amend her
       complaint to resolve its deficiencies. Because any further
       amendment would be futile, we reject Moore’s request.
                                 *     *      *
               Because Moore’s claims are barred and amending her
       complaint would not resolve that defect, the district court did not
       err in its dismissal. We AFFIRM.