Aubrey Garrett v. Internal Revenue Service, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Aubrey Maurice Garrett. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 16-15779 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15779 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-01322-RDP AUBREY MAURICE GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, COMMISSONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REBECCA KLINE, Director of Internal Revenue Service, each in their professional and personal capacities, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (August 3, 2017) Case: 16-15779 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Aubrey Garrett appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Garrett, a tax protestor, challenged the authority of the Internal Revenue Service and its employees to impose and collect taxes. We affirm. We review for abuse of discretion the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and are construed liberally. Id. “A lawsuit is frivolous if the plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.” Clark v. Ga. Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed Garrett’s complaint. Garrett applied to proceed in forma pauperis, so the district court was required to review his complaint and to “dismiss the case . . . if . . . the action or appeal . . . [was] frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We have repeatedly rejected Garrett’s arguments that he was not a “taxpayer” and was immune from prosecution because he is not a citizen of the United States. See Stoecklin v. Commissioner, 865 F.2d 1221, 1223–24 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987); McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 2 Case: 16-15779 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 3 of 3 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986). Additionally, as the district court noted, Garrett’s complaint was “virtually unintelligible.” Because Garrett had no realistic chance of success, the district court was required to dismiss his action as frivolous. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Garrett’s complaint. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?