Garland E. Williams v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1712
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01632-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
Decided: January 17, 2023
______________________
G ARLAND E DWARD WILLIAMS , Slidell, LA, pro se.
SEAN K ELLY G RIFFIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON , T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, D YK and P ROST , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 22-1712 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

WILLIAMS v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Garland E. Williams appeals Court of Federal Claims
orders denying his motion for sanctions and dismissing his
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2021, Mr. Williams filed a complaint
against the United States and five former Secretaries of the
Treasury in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”).
His complaint invoked Tucker Act jurisdiction and primar-
ily alleged that the Treasury Department had improperly
remitted at least a portion of his income tax refunds to the
State of Kansas to cover past-due child support. On Sep-
tember 27, 2021, the government moved to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
On October 5, 2021, Mr. Williams filed a motion that
the court construed as a motion for sanctions pursuant to
Rule 11, alleging that government counsel was not author-
ized to practice before the Claims Court. On October 7,
2021, the Claims Court denied Mr. Williams’ motion. Mr.
Williams appealed the October 7, 2021 order. On January
25, 2022, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in
the absence of a final judgment. Williams v. United States,
2022 WL 1133029, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2022), cert. de-
nied, 142 S. Ct. 1684 (2022).
On March 21, 2022, the Claims Court held that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Mr. Wil-
liams’ complaint. Mr. Williams appeals. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Williams appears to be challenging the
Claims Court’s denial of his motion for sanctions and its
grant of the government’s motion to dismiss.
Mr. Williams’ motion for sanctions primarily alleged
that the government’s attorney failed to comply with Rule
Case: 22-1712 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

WILLIAMS v. US 3
83.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, which in relevant part governs attorney eligibility
to practice before the Claims Court, attorney admissions,
and procedures related to the attorney of record. In deny-
ing Mr. Williams’ motion, the Claims Court explained that
“[t]he Court has verified with the Clerk of Court that De-
fendant’s counsel is a member of the Virginia State Bar and
is admitted to practice before this Court,” S.A. 18, and re-
viewed the government attorney’s entry of appearance,
finding no violations of Rule 83.1.1 The Claims Court did
not err in denying Mr. Williams’ motion for sanctions.
Mr. Williams also contends that the Claims Court
erred in dismissing his complaint. Mr. Williams’ complaint
primarily alleges that the Treasury Department unlaw-
fully reduced Mr. Williams’ federal tax refunds to offset
past-due child support owed to a Kansas agency. The com-
plaint alleges that “the [Kansas agency] . . . request[ed] the
income withholding offsets of plaintiff’s tax overpayments
[for 2001, 2007, 2009–10, and 2013–18,]” S.A. 39–40, and
the Treasury remitted Mr. Williams’ tax refunds to the
Kansas agency.
The Social Security Act allows a state to collect past-
due support from federal tax refunds. See 42 U.S.C. § 664.
Subsection 6402(c) of Title 26 of the United States Code
requires the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce a person’s
tax refund by “the amount of any past-due support” and
remit that amount to the state.
Subsection (g) of Section 6402 provides:
No court of the United States shall have jurisdic-
tion to hear any action . . . brought to restrain or
review a reduction authorized by subsection (c) . . .
. No action brought against the United States to
1 “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the government’s brief.
Case: 22-1712 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

WILLIAMS v. US 4
recover the amount of any such reduction shall be
considered to be a suit for refund of tax. This sub-
section does not preclude any legal, equitable, or
administrative action against the Federal agency
or State to which the amount of such reduction was
paid . . . .
Subsection (g) prohibits the Claims Court, as a “court of the
United States,” see id. § 7430(c)(6), from hearing Mr. Wil-
liams’ claim against the Department of the Treasury to re-
cover the amount deducted. Subsection (g) only allows a
taxpayer to bring action against the Federal agency or
state claiming the debt. Here, Mr. Williams alleged that
the entity claiming the debt was the state of Kansas, not
the Department of the Treasury. Thus, Mr. Williams
would need to bring action against the state of Kansas and
the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over state actors.
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f
the relief sought is against others than the United States
the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the [Claims Court]”).
The Claims Court properly held that it lacked jurisdic-
tion over this claim, and properly held that it lacked juris-
diction over Mr. Williams’ other claims for the reasons
stated by the Claims Court.
We have considered Mr. Williams’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1712 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 01/17/2023

-- 4 of 4 --