McNeil v. United States

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MINOR L. MCNEIL PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:22-cv-981-DPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

ORDER McNeil alleges that the IRS has improperly collected taxes from his social security payments. He wants that money back. The United States moves to dismiss, arguing that this Court doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction and that McNeil has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. McNeil moves to strike the motion to dismiss, which the Court construes as his response to the motion to dismiss. McNeil says this Court has jurisdiction to hear his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702. The United States asserts that its sovereign immunity hasn’t been waived. The Court agrees. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doesn’t waive the United States’ sovereign immunity. Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320, 1324 (8th Cir. 1982). And 5 U.S.C. § 702 isn’t a grant of jurisdiction. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1978); Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 789, 792 n.2 (8th Cir. 1996). To the extent McNeil is asking for a tax refund, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) does not confer jurisdiction because he hasn’t shown that he has fully paid the challenged tax or that he made a timely

administrative claim. Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958); Bruno v. United States, 547 F.2d 71, 74 (8th Cir. 1976).

Motion to dismiss, Doc. 13, granted. Motion to strike, Doc. 17, denied. Motion for discovery, Doc. 19, denied as moot. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 7 une A023