Court Opinion

ID: 9363698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 15:00:34.017733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.638690
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1712    Document: 28     Page: 1   Filed: 01/17/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-1712
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-01632-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
                  ______________________

                Decided: January 17, 2023
                 ______________________

    GARLAND EDWARD WILLIAMS, Slidell, LA, pro se.

     SEAN KELLY GRIFFIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

    Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and PROST, Circuit
                         Judges.
Case: 22-1712    Document: 28      Page: 2    Filed: 01/17/2023

 2                                             WILLIAMS   v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Garland E. Williams appeals Court of Federal Claims
 orders denying his motion for sanctions and dismissing his
 complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      On July 28, 2021, Mr. Williams filed a complaint
 against the United States and five former Secretaries of the
 Treasury in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”).
 His complaint invoked Tucker Act jurisdiction and primar-
 ily alleged that the Treasury Department had improperly
 remitted at least a portion of his income tax refunds to the
 State of Kansas to cover past-due child support. On Sep-
 tember 27, 2021, the government moved to dismiss for lack
 of subject matter jurisdiction.
     On October 5, 2021, Mr. Williams filed a motion that
 the court construed as a motion for sanctions pursuant to
 Rule 11, alleging that government counsel was not author-
 ized to practice before the Claims Court. On October 7,
 2021, the Claims Court denied Mr. Williams’ motion. Mr.
 Williams appealed the October 7, 2021 order. On January
 25, 2022, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in
 the absence of a final judgment. Williams v. United States,
 2022 WL 1133029, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2022), cert. de-
 nied, 142 S. Ct. 1684 (2022).
     On March 21, 2022, the Claims Court held that it
 lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Mr. Wil-
 liams’ complaint. Mr. Williams appeals. We have jurisdic-
 tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Mr. Williams appears to be challenging the
 Claims Court’s denial of his motion for sanctions and its
 grant of the government’s motion to dismiss.
     Mr. Williams’ motion for sanctions primarily alleged
 that the government’s attorney failed to comply with Rule
Case: 22-1712       Document: 28   Page: 3    Filed: 01/17/2023

 WILLIAMS   v. US                                            3

 83.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
 Claims, which in relevant part governs attorney eligibility
 to practice before the Claims Court, attorney admissions,
 and procedures related to the attorney of record. In deny-
 ing Mr. Williams’ motion, the Claims Court explained that
 “[t]he Court has verified with the Clerk of Court that De-
 fendant’s counsel is a member of the Virginia State Bar and
 is admitted to practice before this Court,” S.A. 18, and re-
 viewed the government attorney’s entry of appearance,
 finding no violations of Rule 83.1. 1 The Claims Court did
 not err in denying Mr. Williams’ motion for sanctions.
      Mr. Williams also contends that the Claims Court
 erred in dismissing his complaint. Mr. Williams’ complaint
 primarily alleges that the Treasury Department unlaw-
 fully reduced Mr. Williams’ federal tax refunds to offset
 past-due child support owed to a Kansas agency. The com-
 plaint alleges that “the [Kansas agency] . . . request[ed] the
 income withholding offsets of plaintiff’s tax overpayments
 [for 2001, 2007, 2009–10, and 2013–18,]” S.A. 39–40, and
 the Treasury remitted Mr. Williams’ tax refunds to the
 Kansas agency.
     The Social Security Act allows a state to collect past-
 due support from federal tax refunds. See 42 U.S.C. § 664.
 Subsection 6402(c) of Title 26 of the United States Code
 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce a person’s
 tax refund by “the amount of any past-due support” and
 remit that amount to the state.
     Subsection (g) of Section 6402 provides:
     No court of the United States shall have jurisdic-
     tion to hear any action . . . brought to restrain or
     review a reduction authorized by subsection (c) . . .
     . No action brought against the United States to

     1  “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
 with the government’s brief.
Case: 22-1712    Document: 28       Page: 4   Filed: 01/17/2023

 4                                             WILLIAMS   v. US

     recover the amount of any such reduction shall be
     considered to be a suit for refund of tax. This sub-
     section does not preclude any legal, equitable, or
     administrative action against the Federal agency
     or State to which the amount of such reduction was
     paid . . . .
 Subsection (g) prohibits the Claims Court, as a “court of the
 United States,” see id. § 7430(c)(6), from hearing Mr. Wil-
 liams’ claim against the Department of the Treasury to re-
 cover the amount deducted. Subsection (g) only allows a
 taxpayer to bring action against the Federal agency or
 state claiming the debt. Here, Mr. Williams alleged that
 the entity claiming the debt was the state of Kansas, not
 the Department of the Treasury. Thus, Mr. Williams
 would need to bring action against the state of Kansas and
 the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over state actors.
 United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f
 the relief sought is against others than the United States
 the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdic-
 tion of the [Claims Court]”).
     The Claims Court properly held that it lacked jurisdic-
 tion over this claim, and properly held that it lacked juris-
 diction over Mr. Williams’ other claims for the reasons
 stated by the Claims Court.
    We have considered Mr. Williams’ remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
  No costs.