Smith v. Castelo et al, No. 2:2022cv00325 - Document 54 (E.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 39 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; dismissing as moot 49 Defendants Motion for Order to Prohibit Communications. Plaintiff's Second and Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. File is closed. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (REM, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Castelo et al Doc. 54 Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 1 PageID.424 Page 1 of 6 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 2 Jul 11, 2023 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 THOMAS-EDWARD-ELMER SMITH, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. No. 2:22-CV-00325-SAB 12 SUZI CASTELO, private and professional ORDER GRANTING 13 capacity; LINDA MILLER SHEETS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 private and professional capacity; STEVE DISMISS 15 RAMSEY, private and professional 16 capacity; MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, 17 private and professional capacity; JOE 18 HOLLENBACK, private and professional 19 capacity; SPOKANE COUNTY; and 20 STATE OF WASHINGTON 21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a 24 Claim, ECF No. 39, and Motion for Order to Prohibit Communication, ECF No. 25 49. Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants are represented by Casey A. Evans and Dayle 26 Andersen, Jr. The motions were heard without oral argument. 27 Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to survive a 28 Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 PageID.425 Page 2 of 6 1 and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After reviewing the 2 briefing and the relevant case law, the Court agrees and grants Defendants’ motion 3 to dismiss. 4 5 Factual Background and Procedural History The following facts are construed from Plaintiff’s Second Amended 6 Complaint, ECF No. 36. 7 After notice of a tax assessment, Plaintiff makes numerous claims related to 8 property taxes upon his purported real property. Plaintiff argues Defendants are 9 engaged in “felonious actions of collusion” against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges 10 Defendants committed forgery and violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 11 (“FDCPA”) and, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 12 Legal Standard 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may move to 14 dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint “should not be 15 dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff can prove no set of 16 facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hydranautics v. 17 FilmTec Corp., 70 F.3d 533, 535–36 (9th Cir. 1995). When considering a motion 18 to dismiss, courts accept all well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and 19 construes them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wyler Summit 20 P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). 21 Rule 8(a)(2) requires that each claim in a pleading be supported by “a short 22 and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To 23 satisfy this requirement, a complaint must contain sufficient factual content “to 24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, 25 Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 26 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is plausible on its face “when the 27 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 28 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 2 Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 PageID.426 Page 3 of 6 1 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In evaluating whether a complaint states a plausible 2 claim for relief, courts rely on “judicial experience and common sense” to 3 determine whether the factual allegations, which are assumed to be true, “plausibly 4 give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. It is not enough that a claim for 5 relief be merely “possible” or “conceivable,” but “plausible on its face.” Id. at 662. 6 7 8 Applicable Law and Discussion 1. The Ability to Levy Taxes on Real Property Plaintiff did not state a claim for violation of a constitutional right. States 9 possess a concurrent authority to tax real property. See Mayor, Aldermen & 10 Commonalty of City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102, 107 (1837). Under Article 11 VII, § 1 of the Washington State Constitution: The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered, or contracted 12 away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the 13 territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word “property” as used herein shall 14 mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to 15 ownership. All real estate shall constitute one class. 16 Chapter 36.21 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for the position of a 17 County Assessor whose duties include the “responsibility of valuing real property 18 for the purposes of taxation[.]” RCW § 36.21.015. Furthermore, “[a]ll property 19 now existing … shall be subject to assessment and taxation for state, county, other 20 taxing district purposes[.]” Id. § 84.36.005. The county treasurer is vested with the 21 authority to collect and receive all taxes “extended upon the tax rolls of the court, 22 whether levied for … municipal or other purposes.” Id. § 824.56.050(1). 23 “A local government authorized both to impose and to collect … taxes … 24 may contract with the county treasurer or treasurers within which the local 25 government is located to collect … taxes.” Id. § 84.56.035. The Washington State 26 Department of Revenue is authorized by statute “to direct and to order any count 27 board of equalization to raise or lower the valuation of any taxable property, or to 28 add any property to the assessment list, or to perform or complete any other duty ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 3 Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 PageID.427 Page 4 of 6 1 required by statute.” Id. § 84.08.060. In the event of a taxation dispute arising out 2 of real property taxes determined by the County Assessor, the taxpayer must 3 appeal the determination to the County Board of Equalization who has jurisdiction 4 to hear all appeals as may be authorized by statute. Wash. Admin. Code § 458-145 015. 6 Plaintiff’s constitutional claims relate solely to the assessment and taxation 7 of his real property. The authority to tax properties is a concurrent authority under 8 both the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions and is further defined by 9 Washington State statute. Spokane County possesses a legal right to tax such 10 property, there is no basis in law or fact to support Plaintiff’s assertion of 11 constitutional violations for the mere assessment and collection of local property 12 tax. Thus, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are dismissed. 13 14 2. Forgery Forgery is the “making, dealing, or possessing any counterfeit obligation or 15 other security of the United States” with the “intent to defraud … any falsely made, 16 forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States. 17 18 U.S.C. §§ 470, 472. Section 473 criminalizes persons engaged in acts of 18 forgery. Id. § 473. Since this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal indictment, the Court 19 dismisses Plaintiff’s forgery claim. 20 21 3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act The FDCPA applies to debt collectors but specifically excludes actions 22 against “any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that 23 collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official 24 duties.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(C). Since local and state governments are explicitly 25 excluded, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim. 26 27 4. The Tax Injunction Act The Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”) constrains federal court jurisdiction over 28 enjoining, suspending, or restraining the “assessment, levy, or collection of any tax ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 4 Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 PageID.428 Page 5 of 6 1 under State law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had in the 2 courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341; Rosewell v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, 450 U.S. 3 503, 512 (1981) (stating that district courts may not enjoin state tax administration 4 “except in instances where the state-court remedy is not ‘plain, speedy, and 5 efficient’”). Plaintiff has not shown that Spokane County’s tax assessment and collection 6 7 process is not “plain, speedy, and efficient.” Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s 8 TIA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Conclusion 9 The general thesis of Plaintiff’s complaint is that Plaintiff believes he should 10 11 not be subject to tax, Washington State and Spokane County lack authority to levy 12 and/or collect such taxes, and efforts to do so violate the U.S. and Washington 13 State Constitutions. Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 14 granted. Therefore, his claims are dismissed. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 5 Case 2:22-cv-00325-SAB ECF No. 54 filed 07/11/23 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. PageID.429 Page 6 of 6 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 3 39, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Second and Third Amended Complaint are 4 DISMISSED. 5 2. Defendants’ Motion for Order to Prohibit Communications, ECF No. 6 49, is DISMISSED as moot. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of 8 Defendants and against Plaintiff. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to file this 10 Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 11 DATED this 11th day of July 2023. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS # 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
