Kistler v. Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau, 3:17-cv-01672

Pro se plaintiff John Michael Kistler challenged Lackawanna County and City of Scranton property tax assessment/collection on his privately owned real property (816 S. Webster Ave.), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a scheduled tax sale.
Complaint framed tax assessment as unconstitutional because ownership of private property cannot be taxed.
Plaintiff filed a proposed temporary restraining order (construed as a TRO motion) to enjoin a tax sale set for September 25, 2017.
The magistrate judge raised subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte and analyzed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) (facial attack).
Court found the Tax Injunction Act bars federal-court challenges to state tax assessment/collection where state courts offer a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy, and concluded Pennsylvania provides such remedies.
Recommendation: deny TRO, dismiss case sua sponte for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, and close the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenge to state property tax assessment/collection	Kistler: assessment/collection of tax on private property is unconstitutional and federal court may enjoin the tax sale	Defendants/Responding law: Federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act when state courts provide a plain, speedy, efficient remedy	Held: Dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act; plaintiff must pursue Pennsylvania remedies
Whether court may issue TRO enjoining imminent tax sale	Kistler sought a TRO to stop the September 25 tax sale	Defendants: court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin state tax assessment/collection	Held: TRO denied for lack of jurisdiction

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se filings construed liberally)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742 (3d Cir. 1995) (courts must satisfy themselves of subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406 (3d Cir. 1991) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (distinguishes facial vs factual Rule 12(b)(1) attacks)
Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) (permissible materials for Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack)
Gass v. Cty. of Allegheny, Pa., 371 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2004) (Tax Injunction Act bars federal suits challenging state tax where state provides adequate remedy; declaratory relief also barred)
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982) (TIA bars declaratory judgments attacking state tax laws)
Balazik v. Cty. of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 1994) (Pennsylvania provides adequate state remedies for § 1983 challenges to taxation)