Shekhem El v. Hiller

Background

Yashua Shekhem El, representing himself, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Amanda Hiller in her personal and official capacities, and Josh Russell in his personal and official capacities. He brought claims under federal civil-rights statutes and sought declaratory relief and monetary damages.

The dispute concerned tax-collection efforts based on income executions issued in 2004 and 2022. An income execution is a tax levy that collects a percentage of a debtor’s wages. El alleged that the 2004 income execution was fraudulently obtained and that the 2022 income execution continued the same unlawful collection efforts. He also alleged violations involving property, retaliation, due process, and the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.

El had previously challenged the 2004 income execution in state and federal proceedings. Those proceedings were dismissed on jurisdictional or exhaustion grounds. In this case, the defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. They also moved for an order restricting El from filing future cases about his state tax obligations and related collection efforts.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the Tax Injunction Act, a federal law that generally prevents federal courts from stopping, suspending, or restricting state tax collection when the state provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. The court explained that this restriction also applies to requests for declaratory relief. It further held that principles of comity, which limit federal interference with state tax matters, bar claims for damages when state law provides an adequate remedy.

The court found that El’s claims challenged the validity of the 2004 and 2022 income executions, which were tax levies. It also found that New York provides adequate procedures for challenging tax assessments and raising constitutional objections. The court therefore concluded that the Tax Injunction Act and comity principles deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over El’s claims.

The court dismissed El’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(1). Because it resolved the case on that jurisdictional ground, it did not consider the defendants’ alternative Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.

Filing-Injunction Motion

The defendants asked the court to prevent El from filing future actions about his New York tax obligations, the tax department’s collection efforts, or related conduct without court permission. The court evaluated factors including El’s litigation history, his motivation and likelihood of success, his self-represented status, the burdens imposed on the defendants and courts, and whether other sanctions would be adequate.

The court found that El’s prior litigation was duplicative and that the current claims had no objective chance of success in light of earlier rulings. Those considerations, along with the duplicative nature of his filings and accusations against defense counsel, supported an injunction to some degree. But the court also found that the litigation history involved only four cases concerning this issue, that the resulting expense and burden did not appear particularly high, and that the record did not establish that a filing injunction was the only adequate remedy.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for a filing injunction. It warned that further filings concerning the 2004 and 2022 income executions could be considered frivolous and could lead to sanctions, including a filing injunction.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied their motion for a filing injunction. The court also denied leave to amend because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured by repleading, directed entry of judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.