Clark, et al v. Andrews County, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
September 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-51372
Summary Calendar
LONNIE D. CLARK; RUBEN WHITE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ANDREWS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT; ANDREWS COUNTY, TEXAS;
ROYCE UNDERWOOD, Tax Assessor-Collector for
Andrews County, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-02-CV-119
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie D. Clark (Clark) and Ruben White (White) appeal the
dismissal of their suit against various taxing authorities of
Andrews County, Texas, alleging violations of their due process
and equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Clark and White asserted that the Andrews
County taxing authorities assessed their property at a much

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-51372
-2-
higher value than comparable properties and ignored their
requests for an administrative hearing before the local tax
board. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, finding that the action was barred by the
Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
The Tax Injunction Act prohibits the federal district court
from exercising jurisdiction over a suit to “enjoin, suspend or
restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under
State law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had
in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Clark and White
could adjudicate their claims fully in Texas state court. See
McQueen v. Bullock, 907 F.2d 1544, 1547-50 (5th Cir. 1990). They
“have not demonstrated that the state courts have refused to
entertain their federal claim[s]” or “that their state remedy is
uncertain or speculative.” See Smith v. Travis County Education
District, 968 F.2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1992).
Thus, the Texas state courts provide Clark and White with
“plain,” “speedy,” and “efficient” remedies, and the federal
court is barred from reviewing their claims by the Tax Injunction
Act. See McQueen, 907 F.2d at 1550. The district court did not
err in dismissing Clark and White’s claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the district court
judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --