Patterson v. Oregon Department of Revenue et al

Filing 17

ORDER: Denying Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary Injunction 14 16 . Signed on 8/2/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TAD ALAN PATTERSON,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01344-JR
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
On July 27, 2016, plaintiff Tad Alan Patterson, proceeding pro se, moved for an
emergency ex parte hearing for a preliminary restraining order against defendants. ECF No. 14.
This morning, Patterson renewed his request for an emergency preliminary injunction. ECF No.
16. Patterson apparently wishes for this court to issue an order restraining defendants from
garnishing Patterson’s wages in collection of alleged unpaid taxes. Because Patterson fails to
establish any likelihood of success on the merits, his motion for a preliminary injunction is
DENIED.
1 –ORDER

STANDARDS
A party seeking a preliminary injunction “must establish that he is likely to succeed on
the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The mere possibility of
irreparable harm is not enough. Rather, the plaintiff must establish such harm is likely. Alliance
for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The standards for issuing a
temporary restraining order are similar to those required for a preliminary injunction. Lockheed
Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Ca. 1995). The
court’s decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits. See Sierra
On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
DISCUSSION
In the complaint, Patterson alleges he is a resident of Lane County, Oregon. Patterson
acknowledges the Oregon Department of Revenue (“ODOR”) may collect income taxes from
certain “privileged entities,” such as corporations, LLCs, and partnerships. See Compl. ¶ 4.
Patterson alleges, however, that the ODOR lacks authority to collect income taxes from other
individuals, apparently including Patterson. Id. (ODOR may not collect “from those who are a
natural man who ‘exchange’ (a legal distinction being made) their labor, manual or intellectual,
for ‘compensation”, id es., “Nontaxpayers” (a legal distinction being made).”) As best the court
can make out, Patterson seeks to be labelled a “nontaxpayer” and prevent defendants from
attempting to collect any alleged taxes.

2 –ORDER

Yesterday, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 15. Among other arguments,
defendants allege this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1341, The Tax
Injunction Act. That act states:
The district courts 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.
Id.
So long as a taxpayer has state law remedies available, federal courts may not weigh in
on the validity of a state tax. Patel v. City of San Bernadino, 310 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.
2002). Oregon law provides for administrative, ORS 305.270, and judicial, ORS 305.445,
challenges to ODOR determinations. At this stage, Oregon law appears to allow for “a plain,
speedy and efficient remedy” in Oregon courts. Therefore, it appears this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Patterson’s claims. Air Polynesia, Inc. v. Freitas, 742 F.2d 546, 547 (9th
Cir. 1984).
CONCLUSION
Because Patterson does not demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of his
claims, his motions for a preliminary injunction are DENIED. This conclusion is not a ruling on
the merits of Patterson’s claims. Sierra On-Line, Inc., 739 F.2d at 1422. Patterson may respond
to defendants’ motion to dismiss and renew the motion for injunctive relief at a later time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Michael McShane
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
3 –ORDER