Futia v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06965
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Futia v. United States, Judge Karas denied Anthony J. Futia, Jr.’s request for emergency relief without prejudice, leaving the claims for later.
Anthony J. Futia, Jr.’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied without prejudice; the United States remained the defendant, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Futia v. United States, Anthony J. Futia, Jr., representing himself, asked the court for preliminary injunctive relief in a case alleging that the United States violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to pay federal income taxes without responding to his petitions for redress.
The court said Futia’s filings did not show that he was likely to succeed or that there were sufficiently serious legal questions and hardships favoring emergency relief. It also noted that similar First Amendment arguments had previously been rejected and that Futia had not alleged that he first filed the required administrative claim with the Internal Revenue Service before suing over incorrectly assessed taxes.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Futia’s request for an order to show cause without prejudice to renewal later. The court said it would address the underlying claims in due course, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Futia v. United States · No. 7:22-cv-06965
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, moved for an order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The opinion broadly describes his complaint as alleging that the United States violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to pay federal income taxes without responding to his petitions for redress.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. Futia had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions warranting litigation, together with a balance of hardships decisively favoring him.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Futia’s complaint and exhibits did not establish either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions and a favorable balance of hardships. It stated that his First Amendment arguments concerning a government obligation to respond to petitions for redress before he paid taxes had already been considered and entirely rejected in a cited prior decision. The court said it saw no fault in that reasoning.
The court also stated that Futia had a right to sue for incorrectly assessed taxes under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a), but that he had not pleaded compliance with the required procedure: filing an administrative claim with the Internal Revenue Service before bringing the lawsuit under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) and the cited regulation.
Disposition
The court denied Futia’s request for an order to show cause without prejudice to renewal at a later time. It stated that it would address the merits of the complaint’s claims in due course. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.