Brian Hilvety v. R.A. MITCHELL and ARLIE ALEXANDER

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2009 *
Decided June 23, 2009
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 08‐4020
BRIAN HILVETY,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
R.A. MITCHELL and ARLIE
ALEXANDER,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 08‐2188
Michael P. McCuskey,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Brian Hilvety, proceeding pro se, sued two employees of the Internal Revenue
Service in Illinois state court. The case was removed to federal district court where it was
dismissed. We affirm the judgment.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08‐4020 Page 2
This action arose when the IRS, through the named defendants, filed tax liens against
Hilvety in Macon County, Illinois. The two liens list unpaid income taxes dating back as far
as 1997. Hilvety responded by suing the two IRS employees in the Circuit Court of Macon
County, accusing them of violating his rights under the Constitution. Essentially, though,
Hilvety simply claims that the tax liens are invalid because they are not premised on a
judgment from an Illinois court. Hilvety asked the state court to invalidate the liens and
remove them from the county records. The United States, construing the lawsuit as one
against the defendants in their official capacity, removed the action to federal court. The
district court then dismissed the complaint with prejudice for, among other grounds, failure
to state a claim.
On appeal Hilvety argues that removal of his case to federal court was improper; he
also repeats his contention that the tax liens are invalid because they are not premised on
state‐court judgments. Both assertions are frivolous. Hilvety’s lawsuit alleges that federal
employees engaged in unconstitutional conduct in the course of their employment, so
removal to federal court was appropriate under both § 1441(a) and § 1442(a)(1) of Title 28.
See Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005); Moran v.
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc., 230 F.3d 959, 966 (7th Cir. 2000); Straus v. United States, 196 F.3d
862, 863 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, dismissal was proper because no state‐court judgment is
required for the IRS to file a notice of federal tax lien. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6323; United
States v. Swan, 467 F.3d 655, 656 (7th Cir. 2006).
This litigation is the latest in a series of frivolous lawsuits by Hilvety. When we last
encountered him, we sanctioned him $8,000 for filing a frivolous appeal. See Hilvety v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 216 F. App’x. 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2007). That sanction remains
unpaid. We order Hilvety to show cause within 14 days why further sanctions (including a
filing bar under Support Sys. Intʹl, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir.1995)) should not be
imposed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --