[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 22, 2008
No. 07-13777 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00951-CV-ORL-22-DAB
EDWARD C. BRANCA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 22, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edward C. Branca, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal with prejudice
of his complaint alleging the imposition of a fraudulent federal tax lien on his
property, in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 713.31(2)(b) and 713.901(4), and demanding
relief in the form of a declaratory judgment cancelling the lien and awarding
punitive damages in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 713.31(2)(b) & (c). Branca
originally filed the complaint in the Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, but the
government removed the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, and 1444, to
the district court, where it was subsequently dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On
appeal, Branca argues that removal of the case was improper, and argues that the
district court erred by dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction instead of remanding the case to the Orange County Circuit Court
where it was originally filed. He also asserts that pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act, although federal courts are prohibited from granting declaratory
relief with respect to federal taxes, Florida circuit courts retain the power to
adjudicate his claim. We affirm.
The United States may remove any case in which it is named a party to
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Branca named the United States a party to
the instant suit, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a). “Any action brought under § 2410 of
this title against the United States in any State court may be removed by the United
States to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which
2
the action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1444. In his complaint, Branca sought relief
under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Notably, the Act prohibits
federal courts from issuing declaratory judgments in federal tax cases, with certain
exceptions not applicable here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (excepting cases “with
respect to Federal taxes” from Act’s coverage). Finally, under § 2410, Congress
has waived the United States’ immunity from suit only to the extent of a procedural
challenge, but not to a suit concerning the underlying merits of a tax assessment.
Stoecklin v. United States, 943 F.2d 42, 43 (11th Cir. 1991).
Because Congress has explicitly provided for removal to federal court for
suits brought under § 2410, the district court did not err in removing the case to
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1444. The district court also did not err by
dismissing, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Branca’s claims challenging the
underlying merits of his federal tax lien and seeking declaratory relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 2201(a). Finally, the district court did not err by finding that the United
States had not waived sovereign immunity for suits challenging the underlying
merits of a federal tax lien under § 2410. Thus, its dismissal, with prejudice, of the
remaining portions of the suit was proper. We are unpersuaded by Branca’s other
arguments. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3