Aubrey Garrett v. Internal Revenue Service, et al

Filing

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 http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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