United States of America v. Steele
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Dismiss; denying 7 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 4/28/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv1119 (WOB)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN K. STEELE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 6) and motion to dismiss/quash indictment. (Doc. 7).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court concludes that oral argument
is unnecessary. The Court now issues the following Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The United States of America brings this civil action against
Defendant John K. Steele (“Steele”) to reduce to judgment certain
unpaid federal income tax liabilities. (Complaint, Doc. 1).
The United States alleges that a delegate of the Secretary of
the Treasury made assessments against Steele for federal income
taxes, penalties, and interest for various years between 2000 and
2010, in the total amount of $2,861,096.54. (Id. ¶ 5).
States alleges that despite notice to Steele of these liabilities
and a demand for payment, Steele has “failed, neglected, or
refused” to pay the amounts owed. (Id. ¶ 7).
The United States filed this action on December 2, 2016.
The United States accomplished service on Steele on
December 10, 2016.
After being granted an extension of
time to answer the complaint, Steele, proceeding pro se, filed a
motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss/quash indictment. (Docs.
These motions are ripe for the Court’s review.
Steele’s arguments for dismissal are identical to those he
asserted in a similar action against him in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Steele, E.D. Ky. Case No. 3:16-cv-00095.
There, the United States
federal income tax debt from Steele.
See USA v.
Steele, again pro se, filed
a motion to dismiss arguing, as he does here, that the Court lacks
jurisdiction and that he is exempt from the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code.
Our sister court denied Steele’s motion to dismiss on March
See United States v. Steele, Civil No. 3:16-cv-00095-
GFVT, 2017 WL 971041, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 13, 2017).
that there is no reason to waste judicial resources, the Court
adopts Judge Van Tatenhove’s fine analysis and addresses Steele’s
arguments in an abbreviated fashion.
A. Steele’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion; Venue
Steele first moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting
government’s claims. This argument is without merit. Jurisdiction
is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the . .
. laws . . . of the United States.”), 28 U.S.C. § 1340 (“The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil
action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal
revenue”), and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (“Except as otherwise provided by
jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced
by the United States”). See also 26 U.S.C. 7402.
Furthermore, the Court finds that venue is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1396, due to Steele being a resident of
Cincinnati, Ohio, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
B. Steele’s 12(b)(6) Motion
Steele also moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
arguing that the United States has failed to state a claim against
The United States is merely required to make a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Additionally, “[t]o survive a
motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need only plead sufficient factual
matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face’ meaning that we can draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Currier v. First
Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529, 533 (6th Cir.2014) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
assessment dates and the amounts owed by Steele.
(Doc. 1, at 1-
Steele’s motion to dismiss on this basis is thus also without
See Steele, 2017 WL 971041, at *2
Steele’s Miscellaneous Arguments
Steele offers several other arguments as to why the United
States cannot proceed with the present action.
are couched in universally-rejected “tax-protestor” theories, and
they lack merit for the reasons explained in Judge Van Tatenhove’s
See Steele, 2017 WL 971041, at *2-3.
Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and being otherwise
IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 6, 7) be,
and are hereby, DENIED.
This 28th day of April, 2017.
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?