Smith v. United States

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 22 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES B. SMITH and JEAN T. SMITH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 97-4193
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1084)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (District of Utah)
ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of
Treasury; MARGARET M.
RICHARDSON, Commissioner of
Internal Revenue; PAM C. BIGELOW,
Acting District Director, IRS,
Boise, Idaho; MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,
Governor, State of Utah;
KIM S. THORNE, Finance Director, State
of Utah,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. This 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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 the Internal Revenue Service seized the Smiths’ $790 Utah state
income tax refund, the Smiths brought this action against the United States and
various named and unnamed state and federal employees, alleging that the seizure
was unlawful. In their complaint, the Smiths requested both a declaration that the
defendants’ actions were unlawful and more than $23 million in damages. The
defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint.
The magistrate judge assigned to the case recommended dismissal, reasoning that
all of the defendants enjoyed immunity, and furthermore, that the United States
and the individual federal defendants had acted lawfully and that the Smiths had
failed to state a claim against the individual state defendants. After the district
court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint, the
Smiths filed this appeal.
To the extent the Smiths seek a declaration that the defendants acted
unlawfully in seizing their refund check, the Declaratory Judgment Act mandates
dismissal of that portion of their complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (providing
that declaratory relief is not available in suits “with respect to Federal taxes”).
We also uphold the dismissal of all claims for damages against the United States,
as the Smiths have failed to demonstrate that the United States waived its
sovereign immunity with respect to such claims. See United States v. Testan , 424
U.S. 392, 399 (1976) (holding “that the United States, as sovereign, is immune
2
from suit save as it consents to be sued”) (quotation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2680(c) (stating that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply to any “claim
arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax”). Finally, because
the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations that would, if proven true,
demonstrate that the individual state and federal employee defendants “violate[d]
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” these defendants are entitled
to qualified immunity from the Smiths’ claims for monetary damages. See
Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the Smiths’
complaint.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
3