Townsend v. United States, et al et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered DENYING Plaintiff's request for a TRO. (Docket Entry No. 1). (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BOBIE KENNETH TOWNSEND,
UNITED STATES, et al.,
April 03, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-957
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
The plaintiff, Bobie Kenneth Townsend, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the
Internal Revenue Service from collecting unpaid taxes Townsend owes. Townsend, representing
himself, contends that because the compensation he receives for working cannot be taxed, the liens
and levies the IRS has placed against his property are illegal.
A party seeking a temporary restraining order must prove: (1) that there is a substantial
likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) that there is a substantial threat that
irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs
the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not
disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).
Courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax laws and of
the tax levy procedure. Stites v. United States, 746 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1984); Meyers v. United
States, 647 F.2d 591 (5th Cir.1981). Construing Townsend’s pleadings liberally, see Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), he has not shown a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the
merits of his claim.
Townsend’s temporary restraining order application is denied. (Docket Entry No. 1).
SIGNED on April 3, 2017, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge
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?