Mathis v. United States

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 28 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RODGER E. MATHIS; JEANETTE
MATHIS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
No. 02-8070
v. (D.C. No. 02-CV-55-B)
(D. Wyoming)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
This is a pro se appeal from the district court’s order denying the petition
of Rodger E. and Jeanette D. Mathis to vacate a judgment in favor of the United
States and to remand the case to state court. We exercise jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral
argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order
and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the
case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After IRS employees filed two federal tax liens on behalf of the United
States against Rodger and Jeanette Mathis in the Crook County, Wyoming, clerk’s
office, the Mathises filed an action in Wyoming state court. The complaint
challenged (1) the “scope of authority of the ‘Lienor’”; (2) whether the persons
signing the federal liens had authority to sign the liens; (3) the legality of the
underlying tax assessments; (4) the validity of the liens; (5) the legal effect of the
tax liens; (6) whether the liens should be “canceled of record”; (7) and whether a
writ of execution should issue against the lienor under Florida law. (1 R. Doc. 2
at 2.) Also in the complaint is a “criminal portion” asking the court to determine
(1) whether the lienor committed fraud by filing the lien; (2) the “identity of the
participants in and extent of such fraud”; (3) whether the lienor is subject to
prosecution; (4) whether subpoenas or arrest warrants should be issued for
criminal prosecution; (5) whether a writ of “quo warranto” was necessary to
complete the prosecution, and (6) for prosecution of the “crimes.” (1 id. at 3.)
Defendant timely removed the case to federal district court, and a motion to
remand back to state court was denied. Following a determination that the United
States was the proper defendant, the district court dismissed the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity. In its
order, the court thoroughly analyzed why the Mathises did not have a cognizable
claim, explaining that the Mathises could challenge the federal tax liens only
-2-
through the statutorily-prescribed administrative and judicial avenues. (2 id. Doc.
37.)
On appeal, the Mathises advance no cogent reason or legal authority
supporting reversal. Instead, they present to us a petition giving the court
“notice” that any assumption or presumption of their involuntary use of “federal
reserve notes,” the “commercial banking system” or the “bankruptcy of the United
States” had been rejected, as was any assumption that they are taxpayers, citizens
or residents of either the state of Wyoming or the United States. (Pet. for
Declaratory Relief at 1.) What really appellants seek of us is unclear, and they
appear to request:
specific citations of law enacted by the United States Congress which
imposed an income tax upon the Petitioners and the Petitioners [sic]
property . . . [,] establish[ed] the scope of office and authority of the
Lienor/s to impose and collect a tax from the Petitioners, . . . [and]
the specific contract . . . entered into by the Petitioners that waived
their status as sovereigns . . . and subjected them to the “lienor’s” . . .
authority and to the rules . . . of the United States Department of
Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service.
(Id. at 6–7.) Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990),
and Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), compel dismissal.
We have carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
applicable law. For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in
-3-
its June 25, 2002, order, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The “Petition for
Declaratory Relief” is DENIED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-