CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AGILITY NETWORK SERVICES, INC., an Illinois Corporation; CHANDLER DENNY; CINNAMON DENNY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 15-2599
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-01310—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2017
Decided and Filed: February 17, 2017
Before: GIBBONS, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. After receiving a notice of federal tax lien and a notice of intent to levy, taxpayers Agility Network Services, Inc., Cinnamon Denny, and Chandler Denny requested that the IRS hold a Collection Due Process hearing. The IRS took five months to process the request, and when the Office of Appeals finally held a hearing, the presiding agent refused to discuss multiple issues with the taxpayers. They were still dissatisfied after a second hearing before a different agent and sued the Government for the IRS agents’ alleged misbehavior under 26 U.S.C. § 7433, which provides a damages remedy against the United States for certain actions of IRS officers or employees “in connection with any collection of Federal tax.” The taxpayers also requested a temporary restraining order against further taxcollection efforts. The district court properly dismissed all claims because the activity challenged in this case did not fall within the scope of § 7433, and because the Tax AntiInjunction Act precludes the court from issuing a restraining order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GARY WATKINS,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
JODI DEANGELO-KIPP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant.
   No. 15-2445
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:10-cv-13199—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 10, 2017
Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Prior to a jury trial for charges arising from the murder of Quincy Varner, Gary Watkins submitted four times to psychiatric evaluation. Though the first evaluator found him incompetent, subsequent evaluators found him competent and criminally responsible for his actions. Despite his bizarre behavior during trial, including exhibiting paranoid beliefs and urinating on a television screen, defense counsel did not request a fifth psychiatric evaluation. A jury found Watkins guilty as charged. Nearly four years after filing a timely habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for “failure to investigate and raise a defense,” Watkins filed an amended petition arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request another psychiatric evaluation after Watkins’ conduct during trial. The district court granted Watkins’ request for habeas relief. However, because Watkins cannot establish that his amended petition relates back to his original petition or that he is entitled to equitable tolling, we REVERSE the district court and DISMISS this portion of his petition as untimely. Because we conclude that the petition is untimely, we decline to address the merits of Watkins’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
THE STATE OF OHIO et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3093
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:15-cv-00321—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.
Argued: September 27, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 17, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case involves a novel challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act” or “ACA”), and presents us with the question of whether one of the ACA’s tax provisions applies to state government employers with the same force that it applies to private employers. Plaintiffs-Appellants the State of Ohio and several of its political subdivisions and public universities (“Ohio” or the “State”) filed suit against, inter alia, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), alleging that the Federal Government illegally collected certain monies from the State in order to supplement the Affordable Care Act’s Transitional Reinsurance Program (“Program”). Arguing that the Program’s mandatory payment scheme applies only to private employers and not to state and local government employers, Ohio sought a refund of all payments made on its behalf and a declaration that the Program would not apply to the State in the future. Ohio also argued that application of the Program against the State violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of intergovernmental tax immunity. The district court, in a thorough and reasoned opinion, granted a motion to dismiss filed by the United States, and denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Ohio. The district court concluded that the Program applies to state and local government employers just as it applies to private employers, and that the Program as applied to Ohio does not violate the Tenth Amendment. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.