James Garner v. Peggy Katona

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 11, 2023*
Decided September 12, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2495
JAMES GARNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PEGGY KATONA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:21-CV-250-TLS-APR
Theresa L. Springmann,
Judge.
O R D E R
An Indiana tax court confirmed the tax-delinquency sale of real estate owned by
a church after the church did not pay its property taxes. The church’s president, James
Garner, then sued county officials and private persons involved in the sale. He sought
to enjoin their attempts to collect property taxes from the church and to obtain damages
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2495 Page 2
arising from those efforts. But federal courts may not enjoin the collection of state taxes
or resolve a claim for damages arising from those efforts where state courts supply an
adequate remedy. We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of Garner’s complaint.
According to the complaint, Garner’s church purchased real estate in Hammond,
Indiana, and did not pay local taxes on the property for three years. A tax lien on the
property was later enforced at a county tax sale. After the church failed to redeem the
property by paying the tax debt within one year of that sale, the buyer petitioned the
county court to issue a tax deed, which the court granted after considering Garner’s
objection. Residential Note Funding, LLC v. Correct Knowledge is Power Church of Simplicity
= Genius, No. 45C01-2011-TP-001212 (Ind. Cir. Ct. July 15, 2021). The court later directed
the county auditor to issue a tax deed to the buyer.
Garner sued county officials, the buyer, and other private persons involved in
the transaction. He sought to enjoin the collection of property taxes owed by the church
and to obtain damages that, he said, he and the church incurred from the tax collection.
Garner based those requests for relief on assertions that the tax sale violated his right to
due process and to exercise his religion freely and that the sale occurred through fraud.
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, ruling that three
threshold problems defeated the case. First, it ruled that Garner lacked standing to
obtain relief on behalf of the church, the tax debtor. Second, the court determined under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that it lacked jurisdiction to review a state-court judgment.
See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). Third, the court reasoned, the Tax Injunction Act prohibits
federal courts from enjoining or interfering with the collection of state taxes.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
On appeal, Garner unpersuasively contests the dismissal of his suit seeking a tax
injunction and damages. We begin with his injunction request and may choose among
any threshold ground for not reaching the merits of his due-process, free-exercise, and
fraud claims. Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007).
The Tax Injunction Act forbids federal courts from enjoining any state tax where a plain,
speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1341; Empress Casino Joliet
Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 651 F.3d 722, 725 (7th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We have
held that Indiana offers such a remedy through its tax appeals process. Hay v. Ind. State
Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir. 2002). And Garner makes no argument on

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2495 Page 3
appeal why, when he objected to the tax sale in the Indiana forum, that court could not
fairly resolve the claims he raises here. Thus the request for an injunction fails.
That leaves Garner’s demand for damages, and we conclude that under the
comity doctrine the district court rightly refused to entertain that request for relief, too.
Like the Tax Injunction Act, the comity doctrine bars federal courts from resolving suits
for damages arising from the enforcement of state taxes so long as a plain, adequate,
and complete state remedy exists. Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, Inc. v. McNary,
454 U.S. 100, 115–16 (1981). Whether a remedy is plain, adequate, and complete is
essentially identical to the Tax Injunction Act’s inquiry into whether a remedy is plain,
speedy, and efficient. Id. at 116 n.8. Again, Garner’s appellate filings supply no reason
why a federal court should intervene in what is fundamentally a state issue.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --