Kenneth J. Kania v. Diane Nelson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 29, 2008
No. 08-11538 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00057-CV-T-17-TGW
KENNETH J. KANIA,
DOLORES KANIA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DIANE NELSON, in her capacity
as Tax Collector, Pinellas
County, Florida,
JIM SMITH, in his capacity
as Tax Appraiser, Pinellas
County, Florida, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 29, 2008)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth and Dolores Kania appeal pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Pinellas County and several of its officials challenging the validity of a
state tax. The Kanias, nonresidents of Florida, alleged that Florida’s homestead
exemption and Save Our Homes tax cap violate the United States Constitution’s
Privileges and Immunities Clause, and thus, sought prospective application of
those provisions to the state property taxes assessed on their St. Petersburg
condominium and monetary damages in the form of a partial refund of taxes
already paid.
The district court dismissed their complaint, concluding that the Tax
Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, deprives district courts of jurisdiction over
challenges to state taxes and that, further, the principle of comity requires
taxpayers to seek relief in state courts where such a remedy is available. We agree.
The TIA states that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain
the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy
and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” The TIA bars claims
not only for injunctive or declaratory relief, but also for refunds and damages, as a
monetary award would have the same effect on the State as if the prospective relief
2
had been granted. A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck, 629 F.2d 1127, 1132-33 (5th Cir.
1980) (holding that the TIA deprives district courts of jurisdiction over claims for
money damages based on unconstitutionality of city tax and tortious nature of
enforcement). Congress enacted the TIA to prevent those who seek to avoid
paying their tax bill from challenging the tax’s validity in federal court instead of
pursuing the course specified by the state taxing authority. Hibbs v. Winn, 542
U.S. 88, 104-05, 124 S. Ct. 2276, 2288, 159 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2004).
The Kanias frame their suit as one arising from the Constitution and § 1983.
The subject matter of the suit, however, is the application of Florida’s homestead
exemption and Save Our Homes tax cap, and the Kanias seek relief in the form of
(1) a tax refund and (2) prospective application of the Florida laws to the taxes
assessed on their St. Petersburg property. Thus, their claim comes squarely within
the ambit of the TIA. Furthermore, the Kanias have failed to show that Florida
does not provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for their challenge of the
state tax system or a plain, adequate, and complete remedy for their federal
constitutional claim.
AFFIRMED.
3