Travis v. United States ( 2023 )

Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 6, 2023
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
HOWARD TRAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 22-2109
(D.C. No. 2:22-CV-00512-MIS-SMV)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (D. N.M.)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Plaintiff Howard Travis, appearing pro se, filed this action against the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) effectively
seeking to challenge the IRS’s claim that he was responsible for unpaid federal tax
liabilities and penalties for the tax years 2007 through 2012. The district court
dismissed the action without prejudice because it concluded that Travis’s claims were
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 2
duplicative of arguments he was making in a pending suit brought against him in
federal court by the United States. Travis now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
On April 26, 2022, the United States filed suit against Travis in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico to reduce to judgment unpaid
federal income tax liabilities owed by Travis. See United States v. Travis, 2:22-cv-
315 (D.N.M.) (Travis I). The United States alleged in its complaint that Travis,
despite receiving notice and demand for payment of federal tax liabilities for the tax
years 2007 through 2012, had failed, neglected or refused to pay those liabilities.
The United States alleged that the unpaid federal taxes and penalties totaled
$283,055.49.
On June 29, 2022, Travis responded to the government’s suit by filing a
pleading that he labeled a “complaint.” The clerk of the district court docketed the
pleading as an answer to the government’s complaint in Travis I.
On July 11, 2022, Travis initiated these separate proceedings by filing a pro se
complaint that appears to be largely, if not entirely, identical to the pleading he filed
in response to the government’s complaint in Travis I. In his complaint, Travis
alleges that he is a “NONPERSON,” “NON-RESIDENT, NON-DEBTOR,” “NON-
CORPERATED, NON-FICTION, NON-SUBJECT, NON-PARTICIPANT in any
Government programs, a Living flesh and blood man standing on the ground.” ROA,
Vol. I at 10. He also alleges that he “is a ‘transient foreigner’ without legal
2
Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 3
domicile” and is “outside any/all general jurisdiction of the federal government.” Id.Travis in turn asserts in the complaint a host of challenges to the authority of the IRS
to collect federal taxes from him. For example, he argues that: (a) the IRS is not “a
lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury,” id. at 12(emphasis omitted); (b) “Title 26” of the United States Code “has never been enacted
into positive law,” id.; and (c) an IRS regulation that addresses “Income tax on
individuals,” 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b), “attempted to create a specific liability for all
federal citizen(s) and all resident alien(s), but without a corresponding federal statute
that created a liability for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle (A),” and that “[n]either
class is mentioned anywhere at IRC § 1,” id. at 11. Travis also purports to “declare
that [he is] not and . . . never was a ‘taxpayer’ as that term is defined in the Internal
Revenue Code, a ‘person liable’ for any Internal Revenue tax, or a ‘person’ subject to
the provisions of that Code.” Id. at 13. Travis declares instead that he is “and ha[s]
always been, a ‘non-taxpayer.’” Id.
In the complaint, Travis seeks copies of various IRS documents. Travis also
asks that the “Chief Justice of the United States” issue a “Certificate of Necessity
[so] that [the district court could] designate and assign temporarily a competent and
qualified judge from the Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties” in
this matter. Id. at 17. Lastly, Travis asks that a “Notice of Deficiency for the said
1040; Years 2007 to 2012 as well as an itemized RBA [Restitution Based
Assessment] . . . be nulled and void NOT ONLY FOR JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES,
3
Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 4
but noncompliance of the above requested being put on the record.” Id. at 20
(brackets in original).
On July 14, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued an order
directing Travis to “show cause” within twenty-one days “why th[e] case should not
be dismissed.” Id. at 28. The order noted that Travis had filed an identical pleading
in Travis I in response to the government’s complaint against him. The order in turn
stated that “[a]llowing this case to proceed will cause the court and the Parties to
needlessly litigate the same issues twice,” and it thus tentatively concluded that the
“case should be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to manage its
docket.” Id. at 27. The order also noted that Travis “ha[d] not set forth any facts” in
his complaint “showing that it [wa]s necessary to appoint a judge of the Court of
International Trade to preside over” the case. Id. More specifically, the order
concluded that “[t]he Complaint in this case and the Answer in Travis I do not
indicate that there are any issues regarding import transactions or federal transactions
affecting international trade which would require a judge of the Court of International
Trade to ensure that the ruling in this Court in Travis I is consistent with other
federal court rulings regarding import transactions.” Id. at 28.
On August 5, 2022, Travis filed a pro se response to the order to show cause.
The response included some of the same allegations as Travis’s complaint. In
particular, Travis continued to describe himself as a “NONPERSON,” “NON-
RESIDENT, NON-DEBTOR,” “NON-CORPERATED, NON-FICTION, NON-
SUBJECT, NON-PARTICIANT [sic] in any Government programs,” and he
4
Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 5
continued to assert his right to have “a competent and qualified judge from the
Article III Court of International Trade” preside over the case. Id. at 29–30, 32.
Travis also asserted in his response that the action should proceed in order to resolve
a number of “unanswered questions” regarding his liability for the federal taxes and
penalties asserted against him by the government. Id. at 33.
On August 11, 2022, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and
order dismissing the case without prejudice because it found that “Plaintiff’s
Complaint in this case is essentially identical to [his] Answer in Travis I.” Id. at 41.
The district court cited in support Tenth Circuit case law authorizing district courts
“to control their dockets by dismissing duplicative cases.” Id. (citing Katz v.
Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217–18 (10th Cir. 2011)). The district court entered final
judgment the same day.
Travis filed a notice of appeal on August 12, 2022.
II
On appeal, Travis essentially repeats some of the arguments contained in his
complaint, but otherwise makes no attempt to challenge the district court’s finding
that his complaint is duplicative of the answer that he filed in Travis I. Having
reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in finding
that Travis’s complaint in this matter is duplicative of his answer in Travis I, and we
in turn conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion to control its docket
by dismissing this matter without prejudice. See Katz, 655 F.3d at 1219 (applying
5
Appellate Case: 22-2109 Document: 010110821848 Date Filed: 03/06/2023 Page: 6
abuse of discretion standard to district court ruling designed to prevent duplicative
litigation).
III
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
6