Thomas F. Merry v. Wesley Cornelius, Chelan County Assessor, in his official capacity; Russ Griffith, Chelan County Treasurer, in his official capacity; Kevin Overbay; Shon Smith; Brad Hawkins, Chelan County Board of Commissioners, in their official capacities; Robert Sealby, Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney, in his official capacity; Mike Pellicciotti, Washington State Treasurer, in his official capacity; Bob Ferguson, Governor of the State of Washington, in his official capacity; Drew Shirk, Director of the Washington State Department of Revenue

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 22, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Jun 22, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 THOMAS F. MERRY, a man, a citizen of No. 2:26-CV-00139-RLP 6 the State of Washington,

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 8 v. PREJUDICE

9 WESLEY CORNELIUS, Chelan County Assessor, in his official capacity; RUSS 10 GRIFFITH, Chelan County Treasurer, in his official capacity; KEVIN OVERBAY, 11 SHON SMITH, and BRAD HAWKINS, Chelan County Board of Commissioners, in 12 their official capacities; ROBERT SEALBY, Chelan County Prosecuting 13 Attorney, in his official capacity; MIKE PELLICCIOTTI, Washington State 14 Treasurer, in his official capacity; BOB FERGUSON, Governor of the State of 15 Washington, in his official capacity; DREW SHIRK, Director of the Washington State 16 Department of Revenue, in his official capacity; NICK BROWN, Washington State 17 Attorney General, in his official capacity,

18 Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants Nick Brown, Bob Ferguson, Mike 19 Pellicciotti, Drew Shirk’s (collectively the Washington State Defendants) Motion 20 1 to Dismiss, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff Thomas Merry initiated this action pro se. See 2 ECF No. 1. As discussed herein, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. The

3 motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is therefore granted, and the remaining motions 4 pending, ECF Nos. 9 and 11, are dismissed for mootness. 5 BACKGROUND

6 Mr. Merry initiated this action of March 26, 2026. See ECF No. 1. His 7 Complaint alleges that he was formerly a co-owner of real property parcels in 8 Chelan County. ECF No. 1 at 4. He challenges Defendants’ policy of requiring 9 property taxes to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes. Id. He alleges that by refusing

10 to accept property taxes in gold or silver coin, Defendants are violating Article I, 11 Section 10 of the United States Constitution, the due process and takings clause of 12 the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and his civil rights. Id. He

13 requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as restitution and “any other 14 relief this Court deems just.” Id. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the action must be

17 dismissed. FRCP 12 (b)(1). The party who seeks to invoke the subject-matter 18 jurisdiction of the Court has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. 19 Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). A

20 motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) can either be a “facial” or “factual” 1 challenge to jurisdiction. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 2 (9th Cir. 2004). Where, as here, defendants brings a “facial” attack to jurisdiction,

3 “the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient 4 on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. Where the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge 5 is facial in nature, the Court accept the allegations in the complaint as true and

6 draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 7 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 DISCUSSION 9 The Washington State Defendants contend Mr. Merry’s claims are barred by

10 the Tax Injunction Act and this Curt therefore lacks jurisdiction.1 The Act provides 11 that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy 12 or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy

14 1 The Washington State Defendants also request dismissal for failure to state 15 a claim under FRCP 16(b)(6). The Court need not address the adequacy of such 16 pleadings where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 17 Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“Without jurisdiction the 18 court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the 19 law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of

20 announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”). 1 may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. “When applicable, the 2 Act prohibits both declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as § 1983 suits for

3 damages.” Lowe v. Washoe Cty., 627 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations 4 omitted). “If a ‘plain, speedy and efficient remedy’ is not available in state court, a 5 federal district court may exercise jurisdiction over a party's challenge to a state

6 tax.” Id. “For the Act's jurisdictional prohibition to apply, the state court remedy 7 need only meet certain minimal procedural criteria.” Id. (internal quotation marks 8 and citation omitted). A state court remedy is plain, speedy and efficient “if it 9 provides the taxpayer with a full hearing and judicial determination at which she

10 may raise any and all constitutional objections to the tax.” California v. Grace 11 Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 413-14,102 S. Ct. 2498 (1982). 12 Mr. Merry has not alleged that he lacks a plain, speedy, and efficient state

13 court remedy, and this Court is the Court is unaware of any barrier precluding him 14 from doing so. In Washington, an individual who seeks to challenge a property tax 15 may first petition the Washington State Board of Property Tax Appeals, and may 16 seek judicial review of any negative decision through the Washington state courts.

17 Mr. Merry may also raise constitutional challenges to state tax collection 18 procedures in state court, including filing a § 1983 action. As a result, the Court 19 cannot consider the merits of Mr. Merry’s claims and must dismiss this action

20 without prejudice. See Berry v. Alameda Bd. of Sup'rs, 753 F. Supp. 1508, 1509 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (federal court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with California's tax 2|| limitation); Moore v. Kamikawa, 940 F. Supp. 260 (D. Haw. 1995), aff'd, 82 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 1996) (taxpayer's claims under § 1983 that excise tax was unconstitutional or result of unlawful conspiracy were barred by principle of 5|| comity and the Tax Injunction Act); Pac. Bells, LLC v. Inslee, 600 F. Supp. 3d 6|| 1149 (W.D. Wash. 2022) (Pursuant to Tax Injunction Act, federal court was 7\| precluded from enjoining, suspending, or restraining tax program's premiums). 8 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. The Washington State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 1] 2. The remaining motions, ECF Nos. 9 and 11, are DENIED for 12]|| mootness. 13 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter 14]| jurisdiction. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff and counsel, and CLOSE the file. 17|| DATED June 22, 2026 18 PLLC se REBECCA L. PENNELL 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER OL NDICNMICCAT _. «