Meadows v. Bettencourt

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
May 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20707
Summary Calendar
JON M. MEADOWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAUL BETTENCOURT, Harris County
Tax Assessor-Collector,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-650
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jon M. Meadows appeals the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, asserting that his due process and equal protection
rights were violated when he was denied certain tax reductions to
the assessed value of his home which had been granted to his
similarly situated neighbor. Because Texas provided Meadows with
a “plain, speedy, and efficient” remedy for his tax complaint, the

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars federal jurisdiction,
and the complaint was properly dismissed. See McQueen v. Bullock,
907 F.2d 1544, 1547 & n.9 (5th Cir. 1990).
The fact that Meadows did not fully pursue the avenues
available to him under state law does not invalidate the
jurisdictional bar created by § 1341. See Washington v. Line-
barger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson, LLP, 338 F.3d 442, 445 (5th
Cir. 2003); Stephens v. Portal Boat Co., 781 F.2d 481, 483 (5th
Cir. 1986). Meadows’ reliance on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v.
County Comm’n of Webster County, 488 U.S. 336 (1989) is misplaced.
The Tax Injunction Act was not implicated in that case due to the
fact that the plaintiffs had first pursued relief under state law
and received Supreme Court review upon certiorari from the state
supreme court decision. See id. at 339-42.
To the extent that Meadows argues that he has no remedy
under state law because he does not challenge the accuracy of the
taxes he paid but essentially seeks to increase his neighbor’s
taxes, his claim is undermined by the plain language of his
complaint, wherein he requests a refund in the amount of taxes he
alleges he overpaid in 2002 and 2003.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --