Futia v. Roberts

Background

Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Internal Revenue Service Revenue Officer Raymond Roberts, Internal Revenue Service Acting Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi, Westchester County Clerk Timothy C. Idoni, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Bank of Greene County. The dispute concerned federal tax collection efforts involving tax years 2014 and 2017.

The opinion states that Futia owed $84,393.36 in unpaid federal income taxes as of July 29, 2022. The Internal Revenue Service filed a federal tax lien with the Westchester County Clerk on August 9, 2022. The Social Security Administration then garnished part of Futia’s monthly Social Security payments. The Internal Revenue Service also issued levies on accounts at Chase and Bank of Greene County. Bank of Greene County sent the Internal Revenue Service $2,524.17 from one account, and Chase placed a hold on $6,064.74 in another.

Futia alleged that the lien and levies were invalid, fraudulent, or counterfeit. Among other things, he argued that a levy required an oath or affirmation, a court-ordered lien, and service by a sheriff; that the Internal Revenue Service was not a legitimate federal agency; and that Roberts and O’Donnell were pretending to be government agents. His claims included alleged constitutional violations, violations of federal criminal laws, fraud, duress, malicious abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim that the banks committed robbery by complying with the levies.

Pending motions and legal standards

The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Idoni moved under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), addressing personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim. Chase moved under Rule 12(b)(6). Bank of Greene County answered rather than moving to dismiss.

For purposes of the motions to dismiss, the court generally accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Futia’s favor. The court nevertheless explained that legal conclusions and unsupported allegations do not satisfy the requirement that a complaint plausibly show an entitlement to relief.

Federal Defendants

The court dismissed Futia’s civil claims against Roberts, O’Donnell, and Kijakazi in both their official and individual capacities. Claims against federal officials in their official capacities are generally treated as claims against the United States. Because the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and Futia had not shown an applicable waiver of that protection, the official-capacity claims were dismissed.

The court also concluded that any tax-related tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred because that statute’s waiver of immunity does not cover claims arising from the assessment or collection of taxes. To the extent Futia sought damages under Internal Revenue Code Section 7433 for unauthorized tax collection, the court held that he had not alleged that he first exhausted the required administrative remedies concerning the specific collection efforts at issue.

As to the individual-capacity claims, the court declined to recognize a damages remedy under Bivens. The court reasoned that Futia’s claims arose in a context meaningfully different from the limited settings in which the Supreme Court has previously recognized such a remedy. It also relied on the Internal Revenue Code’s comprehensive statutory scheme and Congress’s role in deciding what remedies should be available to taxpayers.

The court separately dismissed Futia’s claims based on federal criminal statutes. It held that the statutes he cited did not create express private rights of action, and Futia provided no basis for implying one.

Claim against Idoni

The court dismissed Futia’s claim against Idoni for allegedly filing a fraudulent lien because Futia did not properly serve Idoni. The only proof of service showed that a summons was mailed to Idoni at the County Clerk’s Office. The court held that mail alone was insufficient under both New York law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Although the court could have allowed additional time to complete service, it declined to do so. Idoni had raised the service problem before the service deadline expired, and Futia neither corrected the problem nor requested an extension. Because service was improper, the court did not reach Idoni’s other arguments for dismissal.

Claims against Chase

The court dismissed Futia’s claims against Chase. It held that Chase was a private entity rather than a state actor, so Chase’s conduct could not support Futia’s Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims. The court also held that Chase was protected from liability for complying with the administrative tax levy.

The court rejected Futia’s arguments that the levy was invalid because it was issued without court action or served by a sheriff. It explained that an administrative tax levy does not require a court order and that a custodian generally must honor a levy. Futia did not allege facts showing either of the circumstances that could justify noncompliance.

Bank of Greene County and other claims

Although Bank of Greene County did not move to dismiss, the court used its authority to dismiss claims that were frivolous, meaning based on clearly baseless facts or an indisputably meritless legal theory. Because Futia’s claims against that bank were essentially the same as his claims against Chase, the court dismissed them as factually baseless and legally without merit.

The court also dismissed any other claims that could be inferred from the complaint, including claims involving the alleged “Safe Harbor Act,” as plainly frivolous. It stated that courts have repeatedly upheld the Internal Revenue Service’s authority to collect taxes through administrative levies without court intervention and rejected Futia’s arguments about the validity of the lien and levy forms.

Disposition

The court granted the Federal Defendants’ motion, Idoni’s motion, and Chase’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed all of Futia’s claims against all defendants, denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile, directed the Clerk to close the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.