Beaulieu v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christopher Beaulieu,
a/k/a Crystal Beaulieu
v. Civil No. 14-cv-280-SM
John P. Aulis, Aaron M. Belanger,
Edward P. Kirrane, Dominic M. Salce,
Michael Shepley, Paul Laflamme,
Kevin Washburn, Jason Whitney,
Scott Collier, and Rueben James Ruiter
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Christopher (a/k/a Crystal) Beaulieu’s
post-judgment motion (Doc. No. 105), which seeks two separate
types of relief. The court has bifurcated its consideration of
that motion, addressing in this Report and Recommendation only
the part of that motion (Doc. No. 105) seeking a court order
garnishing defendant Rueben James Ruiter’s federal income tax
refund. An Order issued separately addresses the remaining
relief requested in the same motion, namely, the request for an
order directing the United States Postal Service to disclose
Ruiter’s change of address information.
Discussion
Beaulieu’s motion (Doc. No. 105), in pertinent part, asks
this court to make Beaulieu the recipient of all of Ruiter’s
“income tax[e]s” to satisfy Beaulieu’s money judgment against
Ruiter. This court construes that request relating to taxes to
be equivalent to a request that the court garnish any federal
Case 1:14-cv-00280-SM Document 106 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 3

2
income tax refund Ruiter may be due, while it remains in the
IRS’s possession, to satisfy the money judgment against Ruiter.
In general, a garnishment action for a taxpayer’s income
tax refund cannot be maintained against the IRS to satisfy the
taxpayer’s debt, as the United States has not waived its
sovereign immunity for that purpose. See Williamson v. Murray
(In re Murray), 506 B.R. 129, 139 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2014) (“an
executing creditor outside of bankruptcy cannot effectively
attach an [Earned Income Tax Credit] refund held by the IRS”),
aff’d, 568 Fed. App’x 477 (10th Cir. 2014); Brockelman v.
Brockelman, 478 F. Supp. 141, 144 (D. Kan. 1979). Beaulieu, who
has not identified any bank or other nongovernmental entity in
possession of Ruiter’s tax refund, cannot obtain a court order
to receive any part of Ruiter’s tax refund while it remains in
the possession of the IRS. Accordingly, the district judge
should deny Beaulieu’s motion (Doc. No. 105), in pertinent part,
to the extent Beaulieu seeks such relief.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Beaulieu’s motion for a court
order (Doc. No. 105) should be denied, as to the request that
the court garnish Ruiter’s federal income tax refund before it
is paid to Ruiter. Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
Case 1:14-cv-00280-SM Document 106 Filed 07/18/17 Page 2 of 3

3
this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 18, 2017
cc: Christopher (Crystal) Beaulieu, pro se
Laura E.B. Lombardi, Esq.
Scott Collier
Rueben James Ruiter
Case 1:14-cv-00280-SM Document 106 Filed 07/18/17 Page 3 of 3