Summary Calendar ELLIOTT MUHAMMAD v. United States of America; Internal Revenue Service

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 5, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fifth Circuit
No. 06-30772
Summary Calendar
ELLIOTT MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:05-CV-812
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elliot Muhammad sued to enjoin the seizure by the United States of funds in his bank
account. The United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the district
court granted the motion on the grounds that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a suit to enjoin
the collection of taxes. Muhammad appeals.
The Anti-Injunction Act generally provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining

-- 1 of 3 --

1I.R.C. § 7421(a) (2000).
2Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 8 (1962).
3547 U.S. 220 (2006).
2
the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,
whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”1 Muhammad
first argues that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because his suit was not to enjoin the
collection of taxes, but rather to enjoin the improper seizure of property. However, the
Government provided ample evidence of a valid assessment of taxes against Muhammad.
When, as is the case here, collecting officers have made a tax assessment and claim that the
assessment is valid, the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits suits for injunctions barring collection
the taxes.2 Muhammad has not shown that any statutory or judicial exception to the Anti-
Injunction Act applies.
Muhammad also argues he is entitled to sue because the Government violated his
constitutional rights. He specifically cites Jones v. Flowers3 and similar cases for the
proposition that the Government’s failure to provide adequate notice violated his
constitutional right to due process. If Muhammad had claimed that Government took his
property without due process, and he had sued the Government for damages, Jones would
support his claim. But Muhammad sued to enjoin the Government from collecting taxes, and
the fact that he raises constitutional claims does not allow him to avoid the Anti-Injunction

-- 2 of 3 --

4See Linn v. Chivatero, 714 F.2d 1278, 1282 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Linn’s decision to cast his
lawsuit in constitutional terms does not mean that the Anti-Injunction Act is inapplicable.”).
3
Act’s prohibition of such a suit.4 Of course, the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit
Muhammad from suing the Government if the Government has taken his property in
violation of the Constitution. It merely prohibits suits like Muhammad’s, where the plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the collection of taxes.
We AFFIRM.

-- 3 of 3 --