Harvey v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION 15-00819-JJB-EWD |
| Parties | MICHAEL HARVEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Pro Se Plaintiff, Michael Harvey ("Harvey" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant, United States of America ("Government").1 Both Motions are opposed.2 Both parties have filed Replies in further support of their Motions.3 Oral argument is unnecessary. The Court's jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1340. For the following reasons, the Government's Motion shall be granted, and Harvey's Motion shall be denied.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Government's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts4 shall be deemed admitted for the purposes of the Government's Motion due to Harvey's failure to controvert them as required by Local Civil Rule 56(b). Local Civil Rule 56(b) requires the nonmoving party to submit disputed facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be tried.5 Harvey has failed to identify evidence in the record andarticulate how this evidence would create a genuine issue of material fact as required by this Court's local rules.6 Accordingly, the Court finds that Harvey has failed to comply with Local Rule 56. The Government's facts in support of its Motion shall be deemed admitted.
The Court further finds that while Harvey did submit a Statement of Material Facts No Genuine Issue7 in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, his facts call for legal conclusions; therefore, they are not facts for summary judgment purposes. Moreover, the Government has offered controverting supporting evidence to dispute each of Harvey's facts. Accordingly, Harvey's Statement of Material Facts submitted in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment shall not be considered by the Court in conducting its analysis.
The Plaintiff graduated from Louisiana State University in 1986 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology.9 He began working as a full-time geologist for the LouisianaDepartment of Natural Resources' Office of Mineral Resources ("OMR"), located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 1999.10 Since 2008, he has owned and maintained a permanent residence in Baton Rouge.11 It is at this residence where Harvey submitted to and received correspondence from the IRS related to the determination and collection of his federal tax liabilities.12 Although Harvey retained some of this correspondence, he disposed of several documents without making a record of what specifically was submitted to or received from the IRS prior to disposing of these documents.13
On February 3, 2009, the IRS filed a Form 668(Y)(c) "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" ("NFTL") against Harvey with the Clerk of Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana ("Clerk of Court").14 The NFTL referenced a total tax liability amount of $10,888.43, which included Harvey's 2005 and 2006 federal income tax liabilities and a penalty for frivolous tax submission under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for the 2004 tax year.15 The NTFL was released on September 24, 2009 when the IRS filed a Form 668(Z) "Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien" ("Release") with the Clerk of Court, after determining that Harvey satisfied the tax liabilities and penalties listed in the NFTL.16
On September 21, 2012, the IRS filed two additional NFTLs against Harvey.17 The first NFTL (Serial No. 893076912) provided Harvey with record notice of federal tax liens against him in the total amount of $109,963.70, which included his tax liabilities from 2007,2009, and 2010, as well as penalties for frivolous tax submission ("Tax Submission Penalties") for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax years.18 The second NFTL (Serial No. 893077012) provided Harvey with record notice of a total tax liability in the amount of $10,017.24, which was solely based on tax submission penalties for the 2010 tax year.19
For all three NFTLs, the IRS gave Harvey timely notice and demand for payment as required under 26 U.S.C. § 6303.20 For both NFTLs issued on September 21, 2012, the IRS gave Harvey timely notice of the filing as required under 26 U.S.C. § 6320.21
On October 23, 2012, the IRS issued two Form 668-A "Notices of Levy" ("NOL"), both in the amount of $104,527.49.22 The first one was issued to Whitney Bank, where Harvey maintained his personal bank account, and the second was issued to Harvey's employer, the State of Louisiana's Office of State Uniform Payroll.23 Both NOLs referenced Harvey's federal tax liabilities for 2007 and 2010, as well as his tax submission penalties for 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.24 A third NOL was issued on November 29, 2012 to Whitney Bank in the amount of $106,249.28, which also included Harvey's 2009 income tax liability.25 In each instance, the IRS gave Harvey timely notice of its intent to levy as required under 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (d).26
On January 9, 2013, the IRS received a levy payment in the amount of $880.19, which satisfied Harvey's 2009 income tax liability.27 An additional levy payment was received on January 29, 2013 in the amount of $1,450.31, which satisfied Harvey's 2007 income tax liability.28 Harvey's 2010 income tax liability was satisfied when the IRS received another levy payment in the amount of $1,450.31.29 In total, the IRS received $5,858.45 in 2012 and $21,834.11 in 2013 from the wage levy issued to Harvey's employer.30 The final payment received by the IRS from Harvey's employer was on August 9, 2013.31
On May 31, 2015, Harvey submitted an administrative claim to the IRS demanding, inter alia, that the IRS issue a certificate of release for the three NFTLs filed against him and an award of damages for what he termed the "unlawful garnishment of his paycheck."32 Harvey submitted a second administrative claim on July 26, 2015, requesting the same relief as in his first administrative claim, but also demanding an award of damages for what he termed "fraudulent securities" for the three NFTLs and three NOLs.33 Harvey claimed that he was owed $250,000.00 for each NFTL and NOL issued by the IRS.34
On December 4, 2015, Harvey filed the instant lawsuit against the Government alleging that the IRS negligently failed to release several liens on his property in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6325(a)(1), for which he claimed he was entitled to damages under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432(a) and 7433.35
The Government now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Harvey's claims are either barred by the two-year statute of limitations under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432 and 7433, or because he has failed to offer competent summary judgment evidence of damages. The Government also characterizes Harvey's claims of wrongful tax assessment as "frivolous tax defier constitutional arguments that have repeatedly been rejected by the federal courts."36 The Government seeks dismissal of Harvey's claims with prejudice and an award of its costs associated with this action.
In response, Harvey has filed an Opposition and his own Motion for Summary Judgment in support of his claims. Essentially Harvey argues that the tax liens and levies filed against him should have been released by the IRS because they were either unenforceable or the underlying tax liability had already been satisfied. The Government disagrees with Harvey's arguments.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matterof law."37 "An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action."38 "When assessing whether a dispute to any material fact exists, we consider all of the evidence in the record but refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."39 "A party moving for summary judgment 'must "demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact," but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant's case.'"40 If the moving party satisfies its burden, "the non-moving party must show that summary judgment is inappropriate by setting 'forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.'"41 However, the non-moving party's "burden is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence."42
Notably, "[a] genuine issue of material fact exists, 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'"43 The Court must resolve all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.44 However, 45 "Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts, however, will not prevent an award of summary judgment; 'the plaintiff [can]not rest on his allegations . . . to get to a jury without 'any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.'"46
The Court recognizes that it is well-established that pro se complaints are "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."47 Pro Se litigants are not, however, relieved of their burden under summary judgment standards to establish the existence of a genuine issue as to material facts in order to avoid summary judgment.48 The Fifth Circuit has held that irrespective of whether a plaintiff is a pro se litigant or whether he is represented by counsel, "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent the granting of a dispositive motion."49
Harvey appears to have raised four claims against the Government. Harvey...
To continue reading
Request your trial