Kistler v. Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau
3:17-cv-01672
M.D. Penn.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Michael Kistler sued the Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging real estate tax assessment, collection, and the September 25, 2017 tax sale of his Scranton property.
- Kistler filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to halt tax collection/sale proceedings.
- Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito recommended denying the TRO and dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no objections were filed.
- The District Court reviewed the report for clear error, adopted it in full, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act.
- The court dismissed the complaint, denied the TRO, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction over challenge to state tax assessment/collection | Kistler contends the County’s tax assessment/collection and tax-sale are unconstitutional because his property is "owned for purely private purposes" and seeks federal relief | County argues federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state tax assessment/collection and state remedies are available | Court held it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act and dismissed the § 1983 claim |
| Whether court may grant TRO before establishing jurisdiction | Kistler sought immediate injunctive relief to stop tax actions | Defendants contend court cannot issue TRO absent a proper basis for jurisdiction | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant the TRO and therefore denied it |
| Whether court may raise jurisdiction sua sponte | N/A (plaintiff did not dispute) | N/A | Court affirmed it may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and did so |
| Whether any procedural defects (e.g., failure to object to R&R) affect adoption | Kistler did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s report | Defendants relied on lack of objections and merits of R&R | Court reviewed for clear error, found none, and adopted the R&R in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2003) (federal courts may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Gass v. County of Allegheny, Pa., 371 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2004) (explaining scope of Tax Injunction Act and limits on federal interference with state tax collection)
- Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1987) (discussing district court review responsibilities for magistrate judge reports)
- Greene v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 789 F. Supp. 2d 582 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (court cannot grant TRO or preliminary injunction absent established jurisdiction)