Kathlyn Moore v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11053
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
KATHLYN MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00395-CEM-DCI
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11053 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11053
Before WILSON, G RANT, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kathlyn Moore brought claims against the United States for
illegal tax collection. After allowing Moore to amend her
complaint three times, the district court dismissed it. Because we
agree that Moore’s claims are all barred, we affirm.
I.
Kathlyn Moore, proceeding pro se, filed claims against the
United States alleging that the Internal Revenue Service conducted
illegal tax collection when it took money out of her Social Security
payments without notice. The government moved to dismiss,
arguing that Moore’s requested relief was barred. The district
court agreed, but it allowed Moore to amend her complaint. After
Moore amended her complaint, the district court dismissed the
case sua sponte because the parties failed to file a case management
report pursuant to local rules. The court later reopened the case
once Moore obtained counsel. Moore then filed a second amended
complaint alleging that the government’s tax collection violated
her due process rights and was otherwise negligent. Again, the
government moved to dismiss, after which Moore’s counsel
withdrew from the case.
The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that
Moore’s claims be dismissed, to which Moore objected. The
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
USCA11 Case: 23-11053 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-11053 Opinion of the Court 3
recommendation and dismissed Moore’s complaint. Moore
appeals that dismissal.1
II.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Georgia
Ass’n of Latino Elected Offs., Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration
& Elections, 36 F.4th 1100, 1112 (11th Cir. 2022). For this review,
“we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe
the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 1112–13.
Pro se complaints should be construed liberally but still must
comply with the procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993).
III.
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal
Government and its agencies from suit.” King v. United States, 878
F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). And for
claims of illegal tax collection, Congress has specifically limited the
remedy that courts can provide. The Anti-Injunction Act
“prohibits courts from entertaining pre-enforcement suits
1 Moore also brings various allegations of bias and prejudice she claims
occurred throughout the litigation process. She specifically contests the denial
of her motion to recuse against the district court judge and magistrate judge,
and claims that the government violated the rules of professional conduct.
These claims are frivolous as they are based primarily on conjecture and her
dissatisfaction with judicial determinations in her case rather than any real
evidence of bias or prejudice.
USCA11 Case: 23-11053 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11053
challenging the IRS’s assessment or collection of federal taxes.”
Christian Coal. of Florida, Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1190
(11th Cir. 2011); see 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). And the Declaratory
Judgment Act, “which generally authorizes courts to issue
declaratory judgments as a remedy, excludes federal tax matters
from its remedial scheme.” Christian Coal., 662 F.3d at 1188–89; see
28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). For certain claims requesting damages based
on illegal tax collection, Congress has waived sovereign immunity
and allowed such relief to be granted by courts—but only if a
plaintiff has exhausted the available administrative remedies. 26
U.S.C. § 7433(a), (d)(1). Exhaustion requires that a plaintiff send an
administrative claim to the appropriate IRS office. Treas. Reg.
§ 301.7433-1(e)(1).
Moore’s due process and negligence claims requesting
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages are all barred.
To the extent that her claims request injunctive relief and
declaratory judgment, they are barred by sovereign immunity.
And even if they were not, the Declaratory Judgment Act and the
Anti-Injunction Act would prohibit the district court from issuing
these forms of relief. Sovereign immunity also bars Moore’s claims
requesting damages because she failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies. While Moore sent various letters to the
IRS, none were sent to the appropriate IRS office and thus did not
satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See id.
In one last attempt, Moore requests that she be allowed to
amend her complaint for a third time. Though courts should
USCA11 Case: 23-11053 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-11053 Opinion of the Court 5
generally allow for amendment, that principle does not apply when
amendment would be futile. Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d
1255, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Moore has already been
given three chances to amend her complaint, and she fails to
explain in her briefing before this Court how she would amend her
complaint to resolve its deficiencies. Because any further
amendment would be futile, we reject Moore’s request.
* * *
Because Moore’s claims are barred and amending her
complaint would not resolve that defect, the district court did not
err in its dismissal. We AFFIRM.
USCA11 Case: 23-11053 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --