Melvin Lewis v. USA, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Melvin C. Lewis. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-11335

Date Filed: 12/21/2012

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11335
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00324-WTH-TBS

MELVIN C. LEWIS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

llPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

llll

l Defendants-Appellees.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 21, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11335

Date Filed: 12/21/2012

Page: 2 of 2

Appellant Melvin Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice
of his pro se civil complaint, which alleged that the United States and other
defendants placed unlawful liens on his property due to unpaid federal income
taxes, and also alleged that he was owed damages stemming from his liens over
the United States. Although Lewis essentially challenged his underlying tax debt
and the resulting liens, he brought claims pursuant to general jurisdiction statutes
and admiralty laws.
We conclude from the record that the district court did not err in granting
defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where (1) New York and Florida were
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; (2) the United States was
immune under general rules of sovereign immunity; (3) Lewis’s true recourse, if
any, was in the United States Tax Court; and (4) his complaint was patently
frivolous. Additionally, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the
district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, where any amendment to the
complaint would not have cured the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a fatal
deficiency. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
2