MARTIN v. SCOTT

EDWARD J. LODGE, United States District Judge

On December 11, 2000, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against several IRS employees, a private individual, and a business. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully withhold federal income taxes from his income. Plaintiff has filed a Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order, asking the Court to enjoin the collection of "money from the Plaintiff's paycheck, for any reason, until the court has reached a final decision in [this] action." The Federal Defendants oppose the motion. The motion is now ripe. Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this matter shall be decided on the record before this Court without a hearing.

As the Defendants correctly note, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to order the relief the Plaintiff requests. Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1990). The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the Court from issuing injunctions to prevent the collection of federal taxes. 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (a). The Plaintiff has not pointed to any exception under the Anti-Injunction Act which would allow the Court to consider the Plaintiff's motion. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d at 523. Therefore, the Court must deny the Plaintiff's Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order.

The Plaintiff has objected to the Notice of Appearance of David Cheng as trial attorney for the federal Defendants. Having considered the objection, the Court finds no legally sufficient reason for barring the appearance of David Cheng. Accordingly, the objection will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 10) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Objection to Attorney Appearance (Docket No. 4) is DENIED.