Garland E. Williams v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2356
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00511-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Garland E. Williams moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal from the judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 6. We construe his motion
and his opening brief as a challenge to the Court of Federal
Claims’s certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
Case: 24-2356 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

WILLIAMS v. US 2
such appeal would not be taken in good faith. We conclude
that the appeal is frivolous and therefore dismiss. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time
upon determination that an appeal is frivolous).
After several unsuccessful attempts to challenge state
child support orders in federal district court, Mr. Williams
filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims in 2021 challeng-
ing the garnishment of his federal tax refunds to pay those
orders. In January 2023, this court affirmed the dismissal
of that complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v.
United States, No. 2022-1712, 2023 WL 193163 (Fed. Cir.
Jan. 17, 2023). Undaunted, Mr. Williams filed this com-
plaint in April 2024, again challenging the garnishment of
years of his tax refunds and arguing that his taxpayer’s re-
turn information had been improperly disclosed. The
Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for want
of jurisdiction on July 26, 2024, and certified that an appeal
by Mr. Williams would not be brought in good faith.
We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. This court previ-
ously made clear to Mr. Williams that 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g)
barred the Court of Federal Claims from hearing any ac-
tion to restrain or review the Department of the Treasury’s
offset of his tax refunds to enforce a state child support or-
der or bring an action in that court against the state. None-
theless, Mr. Williams again raises the issue before us,
without making any cogent argument why a different out-
come is warranted here. The Court of Federal Claims was
also clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over any
claim of unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information
because jurisdiction over such claims lies exclusively in fed-
eral district court under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a). See Taylor v.
United States, 616 F. App’x 423, 425 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Be-
cause Mr. Williams’s arguments do not present a nonfrivo-
lous issue for appeal, we deny his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
Case: 24-2356 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

WILLIAMS v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 6 is denied, and the appeal is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 20, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-2356 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 03/20/2025

-- 3 of 3 --