Attilla et al v. Douglas County et al

Filing 18

ORDER: Granting Motion to Dismiss 8 . This case is dismissed. Signed on 6/26/2012 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

:peter attilla: family of [reman]
:ida-Iee:family of [reman]
[1525] Plat I , Sutherlin, Oregon
[97479]
phone#: [phone],
Plaintiffs,

No. 6:12-cv-730-HO

v.

ORDER

DOUGLAS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs

bring

this

case

to

"correct

& amend

jurisdiction and venue to cure of jurisdiction."

court

Plaintiffs'

virtually incomprehensible complaint purports to challenge Douglas
County's ability to assess property taxes over real property owned
by plaintiffs located in Douglas County.

1 - ORDER

Defendants move to dismiss asserting that this case is barred
under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.

§

1341.

Under the Act, a

federal district court "shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the
assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a
plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such
State."
Defendants note that the parties are involved in litigation in
the Oregon Tax Court regarding whether plaintiff's property is
subject to property taxes.

The relief requested in this action not

only interferes with the pending litigation in state cou=t, but
would have the effect of interfering with assessment and collection
of

state

taxes.

Whether

plaintiffs'

property

is

subject

to

assessment by the County is an issue that is already receiving a
full hearing and judicial determination with appropriate procedural
safeguards.

See, e.g., ORS

§

305.405 (Oregon Tax court has the

same powers as a circuit court); ORS

§

305.410 (subject to judicial

review by the Oregon Supreme Court); ORS
and may

hear

sworn testimony).

§

305.420 (subpoena power

Moreover,

issues

of

federal

statutory and constitutional law may be raised in the Oregon Tax
Court.

Tafflin v. Levitt, 493

u.s.

455, 458 (1990)

("state courts

have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively competent, to
adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States").
Accordingly, this case is barred under the Tax Injunction Act.
Moreover, plaintiffs have refused to comply with this court's
direction

re9arding

scheduling order.
2 - ORDER

service

of

the

discovery

and

pretrial

See Plaintiffs' Notices of Errors (#9 and #10)

(plaintiffs assert this case has been fraudulently created without
their consent and the Clerk has erred in the discovery package sent
to them).

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a refusal to comply with

this court's orders and procedures and a refusal to appropriately
prosecute this case.

Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is

granted.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants' motion to dismiss
(#8) is granted.
DATED this

This case is dismissed.

2.~ Yctay

of June, 2012.

7

United St tes District

3 - ORDER

Ju~d~~~