Alden Werch v. City of Berlin

673 F.2d 192, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20949
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided March 17, 1982·No. 81-2268·Published·Cited by 38 cases

Opinion

*194 BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Alden Werch filed this section 1983 civil rights suit against Berlin, a Wisconsin municipal corporation; the Berlin Common Council; eleven Berlin Aldermen, individually and as members of the Common Council; the Berlin Board of Review; five members of the Board of Review, individually and as members of the Board; Harold Kassa, individually and as mayor of Berlin; and Richard Doro, individually and as Berlin City Tax Assessor. Werch’s complaint alleges that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of rights protected by the first, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. The gravamen of Werch’s complaint is that the defendants denied him equal protection of the law by levying personal property taxes on Werch’s corn combines when other similarly situated Berlin residents were not so taxed. 1 Werch sought both injunctive relief and damages.

On May 11,1981, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Werch’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On July 2, 1981, the district court granted defendants’ motion for the taxing of attorney’s fees and expenses and ordered Werch to pay $2,112.14 in costs and fees. Werch appeals from both orders. We affirm.

I

Werch seeks both equitable relief and damages. The district court lacks jurisdiction to decide either claim if Werch has a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” available under Wisconsin law to redress his alleged grievance. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars a taxpayer from contesting the validity of a state tax in a section 1983 injunction action if there is a “plain, speedy and efficient” state remedy available. Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 U.S. 503, 101 S.Ct. 1221, 67 L.Ed.2d 464 (1981). Principles of comity bar a taxpayer from contesting the validity of a state tax in a section 1983 damage action if there is a “plain, adequate, and complete” state remedy available. Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assoc., Inc. v. McNary, --- U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981). Werch does not deny that there are adequate state law remedies available. As the district court noted:

Wisconsin law provides three separate remedies for excessive or discriminatory assessments. First, a taxpayer may appeal to the local Board of Review under Wis.Stat. § 70.47. Second, a taxpayer who has appeared before the Board of Review may pay the levied tax by January 10 of the year following assessment, and file a claim with the City Council for a refund of the allegedly excessive portion of the assessment. Finally, the taxpayer may appeal to the District Supervisor of Assessments of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue for redetermination of the assessment. If dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Review or of the Department of Revenue, the taxpayer may appeal by writ of certiorari to the circuit court. The appeal “shall be placed at the head of the circuit court calendar for an early hearing.” Wis.Stat. §§ 70.-47(13); 70.85(1).
A taxpayer who alleges that he has been taxed illegally, as contrasted with an excessive assessment, need not appeal to the Board of Review but may at any time within one year following payment of the tax file a refund claim with the tax-collecting jurisdiction. Bischoff v. Appleton, 81 Wis.2d 612, 260 N.W.2d 773 (1978); Wis.Stat. § 74.73. If the governing body denies the refund, the taxpayer may then begin a refund action in circuit court. Furthermore, inequitable assessments as well as illegal taxes may be challenged in a § 74.73 proceeding. Id.; Bauermeister v. Town of Alden, 16 Wis.2d 111, 113 N.W.2d 823 (1962). In *195 terest may be recovered on such claims. Family Hosp. Nursing Home v. Milwaukee, 78 Wis.2d 312, 254 N.W.2d 268 (1977).
“If for some reason the above appeals procedure is no longer adequate to meet the § 1341 standard, then the plaintiffs in the case at bar have another remedy available to them. The Wisconsin Declaratory Judgment Act, Wis. Stat. § 806.04, provides: ‘Any person . .. whose rights are affected by a statute ... may have determined any question for construction or validity arising under ... [the] statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.’ Such a determination is reviewable in the same manner as any other judgment or decree. Wis.Stat. § 806.04(7).” O’Brien v. Dreyfus, 493 F.Supp. 476, 480 (E.D.Wis.1980).
From the foregoing discussion it appears that under Wisconsin law Werch does have a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” to argue the unfairness or illegality of tax assessments and levies. Thus, this court is prohibited from enjoining collection of taxes imposed on Werch.

We agree. Because there were adequate state remedies available, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide Werch’s claim. The court did not err in dismissing Werch’s complaint.

II

The district court awarded costs and attorney’s fees to defendants as the prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 on a finding that Werch’s suit was unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). Werch claims that the district court abused its discretion. We disagree.

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam), authorizes the federal courts to award prevailing defendants attorney’s fees in a section 1983 suit if the plaintiff’s action is “meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation.” Id. at 14, 101 S.Ct. at 178. Since at least 1978 it has been well-established in this Circuit that the Anti-Injunction Act bars a section 1983 civil rights suit for injunctive relief against state tax assessments if state law provides an adequate remedy. Sacks Bros. Loan Co., Inc. v. Cunningham, 578 F.2d 172

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alden Werch v. City of Berlin, 673 F.2d 192, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20949 (7th Cir. 1982).

673 F.2d 192 (Alden Werch v. City of Berlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas Ghelf v. Town of Wheatland
132 F.4th 456 (Seventh Circuit, 2025)
Cosgriff v. County of Winnebago
876 F.3d 912 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
Capra v. Cook County Board of Review
733 F.3d 705 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Wendt v. Leonard
431 F.3d 410 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
General Motors v. City of Linden
653 A.2d 568 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
Lolling v. Patterson
138 F.R.D. 109 (C.D. Illinois, 1991)
Brown v. Borough Of Chambersburg
903 F.2d 274 (Third Circuit, 1990)
Paul Hamer v. County Of Lake
819 F.2d 1362 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
Hamer v. County of Lake
819 F.2d 1362 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
Coleman v. McLaren
631 F. Supp. 763 (N.D. Illinois, 1986)
Marvin Hamilton v. Richard M. Daley
777 F.2d 1207 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Curry v. A.H. Robins Co.
775 F.2d 212 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Curry v. Robins Company
775 F.2d 212 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Gilmer v. City of Cleveland
617 F. Supp. 985 (N.D. Ohio, 1985)
Smith v. Smythe-Cramer Co.
754 F.2d 180 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Smith v. Smythe-Cramer Company
754 F.2d 180 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Eichman v. Linden & Sons, Inc.
752 F.2d 1246 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)