USCA11 Case: 22-11602 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11602 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FELICIA H. WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ANN WILLIS, in her individual and official capacities, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00745-MHH USCA11 Case: 22-11602 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11602 ____________________ Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Felicia H. Watkins, pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her pro se complaint contesting the government’s levy of her wages―as facilitated by Internal Revenue Services (“IRS”) Operations Manager, Ann Willis―for lack of subject-matter juris- diction on the basis of sovereign immunity. On appeal, Watkins argues that the district court erred because the following federal laws waived the government’s right to sovereign immunity or oth- erwise provided a source of subject matter jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1361; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Fourth Amendment; the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); and Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949). For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Although this appeal arises out of the dismissal of Watkins’s civil action in 2022, we briefly summarize the events leading to that dismissal. Court filings in another case filed by Watkins, see Watkins v. Willis (Watkins I), No. 2:18-cv-02021 (N.D. Ala. June 18, 2019), sug- gest that Watkins, a taxpayer, failed to pay the proper amount of taxes to the IRS at some point. According to one of Watkins’s fil- ings in that case, the IRS concluded that Watkins owed a tax defi- ciency, and, after the IRS determined the amount due, it undertook USCA11 Case: 22-11602 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023 Page: 3 of 9 22-11602 Opinion of the Court 3 efforts to collect that amount, as well any other sums then due, from Watkins. Watkins alleged that Willis was involved in that effort. In November 2018, Watkins, an employee for the City of Birmingham’s Police Department, learned that the IRS had levied and garnished her wages to collect the aforementioned indebted- ness, without first obtaining a judgment against her. She then filed a pro se civil suit in Watkins I against Willis and another individual to stop the garnishment. The government responded by moving to dismiss that case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dis- trict court agreed and dismissed the suit without prejudice in 2019. See id. Watkins did not appeal this ruling. On May 28, 2021, Watkins, proceeding pro se, filed the in- stant action against Willis for levying her wages. In her complaint, she referred to Watkins I and reiterated that the IRS had not ob- tained a judgment against her, so it could not garnish her wages. Watkins relayed how the IRS, through Willis, had levied her wages and collected $461.54 and contended that she “did not consent” to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals