Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kane v. Town of New Ipswich

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 4, 2016

Michael Kane
v.
Town of New Ipswich, et al. Opinion 2016 DNH 129

          Michael Kane, pro se

          Michael P. Courtney, Esq.

          Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.

          ORDER

          Landya McCafferty United States District Judge

         Michael Kane, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint listing the Town of New Ipswich, New Hampshire, and present and former town officials. Kane challenges defendants’ efforts to collect property taxes from him, asserting that his property is a “household utensil” that is exempt from property tax pursuant to RSA 80:9. Defendants move to dismiss on the ground that the complaint is barred by the Tax Injunction Act.[1] Kane objects to the motion to dismiss.

         Standard of Review

         Defendants move to dismiss under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). For purposes of this motion, where extrinsic evidence is not an issue, the standard of review under both rules is the same. Cf. U.S. ex rel. Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 3568145, at *5 (1st Cir. June 30, 2016).

         In considering motions under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true the properly pleaded facts and takes all reasonable inferences from those facts that support the plaintiff’s claims. Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez, 790 F.3d 99, 104 (1st Cir. 2015); New England Patriots Fans v. Nat’l Football League, 2016 WL 3248207, at *2 (D. Mass. June 10, 2016). Based on the properly pleaded facts, the court determines whether the plaintiff has stated “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if the facts as pleaded, taken in the context of the complaint and in light of “judicial experience and common sense, ” allow the court to draw “the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

         Background

         The background information provided here is summarized from Kane’s complaint. As such, the summary of Kane’s allegations is provided for purposes of the present order only and does not include factual findings or rulings.

         In identifying the parties in the case, Kane states that he is “a flesh-and-blood man created by God and endowed with unalienable rights.” Complaint, doc. 1, ¶ 35. He alleges that the individual defendants are or have been town officials in various capacities.

         The circumstances that lead to the complaint began twenty years ago. Kane alleges that he and his wife bought property with a mobile home in New Ipswich in 1995. He began building a house on the property in 1999. On May 10, 2000, defendants George H. Lawrence and Joanne Meshna, on behalf of New Ipswich, sent Kane a letter notifying him that he was required to have a building permit. Kane challenged that requirement.

         Beginning in 1996, Kane asked defendant George K. Slyman, the New Ipswich tax collector, for proof of his authority to collect taxes from Kane, but received no response. When defendant Amy Thibault was elected to serve as tax collector in 2005, Kane questioned her authority to collect taxes from him but received no response. Kane also requested past tax records from Thibault, but then was able to compile his own tax records from his retained receipts.

         On April 9, 2012, Kane sent a notarized letter by certified mail to defendant Cynthia Lussier, as an agent of New Ipswich, to notify New Ipswich “and its agents and principal” that Kane believed the town’s tax collection process violated his constitutional rights. He asked the town to provide proof of their authority to collect taxes and to return the taxes he had paid with interest. Lussier responded two days later to his request, explaining that his request was unclear and that he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.