Meadows v. Bettencourt

Fifth Circuit

Meadows v. Bettencourt

130 F. App'x 701

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 2005

Docket04-20707

StatusUnpublished

This text of 130 F. App'x 701 (Meadows v. Bettencourt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meadows v. Bettencourt, 130 F. App'x 701 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jon M. Meadows appeals the Fed. R. Crv. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, asserting that his due process and equal protection rights were violated when he was denied certain tax reductions to the assessed value of his home which had been granted to his similarly situated neighbor. Because Texas provided Meadows with a “plain, speedy, and efficient” remedy for his tax complaint, the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars federal jurisdiction, and the complaint was properly dismissed. See McQueen v. Bullock, 907 F.2d 1544, 1547 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1990).

The fact that Meadows did not fully pursue the avenues available to him under state law does not invalidate the jurisdictional bar created by § 1341. See Washington v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson, LLP, 338 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir.2003); Stephens v. Portal Boat Co., 781 F.2d 481, 483 (5th Cir.1986). Meadows’ reliance on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster County, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 633, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989) is misplaced. The Tax Injunction Act was not implicated in that case due to the fact that the plaintiffs had first pursued relief under state law and received Supreme Court review upon certiorari from the state supreme court decision. See id. at 339-42,109 S.Ct. 633.

To the extent that Meadows argues that he has no remedy under state law because he does not challenge the accuracy of the taxes he paid but essentially seeks to increase his neighbor’s taxes, his claim is undermined by the plain language of his complaint, wherein he requests a refund in the amount of taxes he alleges he overpaid in 2002 and 2003.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *703 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Jon M. Meadows appeals the Fed. R. Crv. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, asserting that his due process and equal protection rights were violated when he was denied certain tax reductions to the assessed value of his home which had been granted to his similarly situated neighbor. Because Texas provided Meadows with a “plain, speedy, and efficient” remedy for his tax complaint, the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars federal jurisdiction, and the complaint was properly dismissed. See McQueen v. Bullock, 907 F.2d 1544, 1547 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1990).

The fact that Meadows did not fully pursue the avenues available to him under state law does not invalidate the jurisdictional bar created by § 1341. See Washington v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson, LLP, 338 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir.2003); Stephens v. Portal Boat Co., 781 F.2d 481, 483 (5th Cir.1986). Meadows’ reliance on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster County, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 633, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989) is misplaced. The Tax Injunction Act was not implicated in that case due to the fact that the plaintiffs had first pursued relief under state law and received Supreme Court review upon certiorari from the state supreme court decision. See id. at 339-42,109 S.Ct. 633.

To the extent that Meadows argues that he has no remedy under state law because he does not challenge the accuracy of the taxes he paid but essentially seeks to increase his neighbor’s taxes, his claim is undermined by the plain language of his complaint, wherein he requests a refund in the amount of taxes he alleges he overpaid in 2002 and 2003.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *703 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F. App'x 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadows-v-bettencourt-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack