Williamson v. Sena

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
April 26, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
N A N CY L. WILLIA M SO N ;
JO H N S. WILLIA M SO N ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 06-2103
(D.C. No. CIV-04-537-JB/LFG)
JA CK IE SEN A ; C HR IS R OB INSON; (D . N.M .)
FIDEL A TEN CIO; M IKE A TH ERS;
KEN NY W YA TT; SHARO N LEE
PARKER, Individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, Circuit Judge, BROR BY, Senior Circuit Judge, and
M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judge.
Nancy and John W illiamson filed suit in the district court alleging illegal
actions by Defendant Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) employees in their
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
attempts to collect on W illiamsons’ outstanding federal income tax liabilities.
Due to John W illiamson’s long history of frivolous tax-related suits, the district
court previously ordered him not to file any actions against employees of the
United States without first obtaining permission from that court. Because he
violated the filing restriction in bringing this action, the district court dismissed
his claims. No appeal is taken from that order.
As to Nancy W illiamson’s claims, the district court granted partial
summary judgment to Defendants, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to
all claims except a Fourth Amendment claim. It granted Nancy W illiamson
permission to file an amended complaint detailing the factual basis for her Fourth
Amendment claim only. W hen she failed to do so, the district court entered
judgment in favor of D efendants.
W e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standards as the district court. Simms v. Okla. ex. rel. Dep’t of M ental Health &
Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary
judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answ ers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In applying this
standard, “we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the
-2-
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Simms, 165 F.3d at 1326 (citation
omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude all claims preserved for
appeal are without merit and thus affirm the judgment of the district court. 1
Because we affirm for substantially the same reasons as stated in the district
court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion and order, we decline
to analyze each individual claim in this disposition.
Defendants move for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Rule 38 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, arguing the instant appeal is frivolous.
Nancy W illiamson’s response to the motion for sanctions simply rehashes the
discredited arguments in her opening brief, including her assertions that she is not
a “taxpayer,” that collection of income taxes is not authorized upon the earnings
of citizens of New M exico, and that no authorized statute supports the “kind of
tax 1040” allegedly imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. 2 Defendants
1
Nancy W illiamson’s notice of appeal lists the court order denying her motion
for a cease-and-desist order and for damages against the purchaser of property
seized from her by the Internal Revenue Service as an issue on appeal. Her
failure to argue this issue in her appellate briefs, however, constitutes a waiver of
this issue. Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir.
1990).
2
In an apparent attempt to counter the frivolousness charge, Nancy W illiamson
makes an argument based on the Paperw ork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §
3500-3520. Her complaint, however, does not allege a cause of action based on
this statute, and we will not address it on appeal. See Callahan v. Poppell,
471 F.3d 1155, 1161 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a claim not alleged in the
(continued...)
-3-
request sanctions in the amount of $8,000, contending that the Government
expends an average of $11,000 in attorney salaries and other costs to defend a
frivolous tax appeal. 3 They further note that previous sanctions of $1,500 did not
deter the W illiamsons from filing the present appeal. See W illiamson v. United
States, No. 99-2294, 2000 W L 676053, at *2 (10th Cir. M ay 24, 2000). W e agree
the instant action is a frivolous appeal deserving penalty, and impose sanctions of
$8,000.
W illiamsons have filed numerous actions in federal district court and U.S.
Tax Court seeking to avoid paying their lawful income taxes. 4 In view of the fact
that prior monetary sanctions alone have not dampened W illiamsons’ enthusiasm
for frivolous litigation, we rely on our “inherent power to regulate federal
dockets, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings” to impose filing
restrictions. Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000). W e
hereby enjoin Nancy W illiamson and/or her husband, John S. W illiamson from:
2
(...continued)
complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).
3
A declaration by Gretchen M . W olfinger, counsel for Defendants and a
Department of Justice attorney, states that the facts set forth in Defendants’
motion are true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief.
4
See W illiamson v. Comm’r, T.C. M emo 1981-721, 43 T.C.M . (CCH) 141, 1981
W L 11099 (Dec. 23, 1981); W illiamson v. Comm’r, T.C. M emo 1987-118,
53 T.C.M . (CCH) 287, 1987 W L 40195 (M ar. 3, 1987); United States v.
W illiamson, No. 95-1153, slip op. (D.N.M . M ay 7, 1997); W illiamson v. United
States, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D.N.M . 1999), aff’d, 215 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 2000)
(unpublished opinion).
-4-
(1) filing any further complaints in the United States District Court for the
District of New M exico containing the same or similar allegations set forth in
their complaint in the instant case; (2) filing any further appeals or original
actions in this court involving the same or similar allegations set forth in their
complaint in the instant case; and (3) filing any new actions or appeals involving
tax matters against the United States or its employees until they have certified,
under oath, that they have satisfied the monetary sanctions levied herein. Any
proceedings filed in this court in violation of these filing restrictions shall be
summarily dismissed by the Clerk of this court. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-