The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THOMAS L D’AQUIN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-613
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF SECTION: “E” (3)
REVENUE, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned previously reviewed this matter relative to whether it should
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).1 The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a written
statement to clarify the basis of his claims and show cause as to why his complaint
should not be dismissed.2 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2025,3
and a second amended complaint on June 7, 2025.4 For the following reasons, it is
recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Revenue,
Miranda Scroggins, Luke Morris, Governor Jeff Landry, and State Treasurer Richard
Nelson.5 The complaint sets forth the following sparse factual allegations.
Defendants contacted Plaintiff in 2019 about Louisiana tax liabilities.6
1 R. Doc. 2.
2 R. Doc. 3.
3 R. Doc. 6.
4 R. Doc. 11. The margins used by Plaintiff cut off some text of the second amended
complaint—an issue that Plaintiff apparently opted not to remedy. In any event, the
text affected by the margins appears identical to the text in the first amended
complaint.
5 R. Docs. 1, 6, 11.
6 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 9.
Plaintiff presented evidence of Mississippi residency to rebut the alleged tax
liabilities.7 Defendants nonetheless suspended Plaintiff’s Louisiana driver’s license.8
Plaintiff and Defendants litigated their disagreement before the Louisiana State
Board of Tax Appeals. Ultimately, they reached a settlement agreement, and the
litigation was dismissed with prejudice.9 Later, Defendants seized Plaintiffs’ 2023
and 2024 tax refunds and Social Security funds; this seizure may have violated the
settlement agreement.10
II. Standard of Law
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires summary dismissal sua sponte should the Court
determine that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. It provides, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that--
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (emphasis added). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2) and dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are subject
7 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 10.
8 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 11.
9 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 12. Plaintiff filed a copy of a joint motion to dismiss his tax appeal that
acknowledges the existence of a settlement agreement, but the settlement agreement
itself has not been filed. R. Doc. 11 at 5.
10 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 15.
to the “same standard.” Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2021); Francois
v. Jefferson Par., No. 14-337, 2015 WL 711815, at *8 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2015).
A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,”
embracing both “the inarguable legal conclusion” and “the fanciful factual allegation.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness review is “designed
largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon,
baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs
of bringing suit [.]” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it
does not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013)
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S.
at 678. Courts apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se, but they
will not “invent . . . novel arguments on behalf of a pro se plaintiff in the absence of
meaningful, albeit imperfect, briefing.” Jones v. Alfred, 353 F. App’x 949, 952 (5th
Cir. 2009). Stated otherwise, a pro se litigant “must [still] set forth facts giving rise
to a claim on which relief may be granted.” Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th
Cir. 1993).
III. Analysis
Construed liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he alleges
§ 1983 claims based on an alleged due process violation and an unlawful seizure or
taking of Plaintiff’s tax refunds, as well as state-law claims for breach of the
settlement agreement and negligence. Despite multiple opportunities for
amendment, each claim fails as a matter of law.
The § 1983 claims against the Louisiana Department of Revenue are subject
to Eleventh Amendment immunity and should be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Hanna v. LeBlanc, 716 F. App'x 265, 268 (5th
Cir. 2017); see also Howard v. Jarrell, No. 1:22-CV-05422, 2023 WL 1775090, at *3
(W.D. La. Jan. 13, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-05422,
2023 WL 1768149 (W.D. La. Feb. 3, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-30199, 2023 WL
11015616 (5th Cir. June 9, 2023). Nor are there any factual allegations relative to
Defendants Governor Landry and Nelson. They are mentioned in passing only as
having some “oversight” role relative to unspecified events.11 When a plaintiff merely
lists a defendant in a complaint but makes no factual allegations, he has failed to
state a specific claim against that defendant. See Guillotte v. Lafourche Par., No. 21-
1400, 2022 WL 775339, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 2022). Given Plaintiff’s multiple
opportunities for amendment and the absence of any allegations suggesting a viable
claim, these claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
11 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 8. While the Complaint refers vaguely to March 2023 correspondence
“from the Attorney General’s office,” it does not contain any allegations that would
support a claim based on events during Governor Landry’s prior service as Attorney
General. R. Doc. 6, ¶ 13.
With respect to § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive “adequate
notice, hearing, or justification” in violation of his due process rights.12 He does not,
however, set forth factual allegations to support these conclusions. Moreover, he
affirmatively alleges that his tax dispute was the subject of litigation before the Board
of Tax Appeals, resulting in a settlement.13 Nowhere does he point to a specific due
process violation in connection with that litigation. Plaintiff’s allegations
demonstrate disagreement with Defendants’ actions, but no procedural infirmity of
constitutional significance.14 Plaintiff’s unlawful seizure or taking claim similarly
presents only a conclusory allegation that Defendants “intercepted Plaintiff’s tax
refunds without lawful authority or compliance with state or federal procedure.”15
Even construed generously, Plaintiff’s § 1983 allegations fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. Given the ample opportunity for amendment, these claims
should be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s state-law claims for negligence also fall short. Plaintiff alleges that
Morris, an “official” of the Louisiana Department of Revenue, “backdated a license
suspension after Plaintiff had already renewed his license.”16 Elsewhere, he seems to
refer to the same alleged conduct as a “manual override by upper-level staff.”17 It
appears this conduct occurred in June 2019 or soon after. In any event, the allegations
make clear that the alleged conduct by Morris pre-dated the 2021 settlement in this
12 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 17.
13 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 12.
14 E.g., R. Doc. 6, ¶ 15.
15 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 19.
16 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 11.
17 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 8.
case.18 Even if Plaintiff could raise a viable claim against Morris (which is far from
apparent), any such claim would be time-barred under Louisiana law. See La. Civ.
Code arts. 3492 and 3493.1. As for Scroggins, Plaintiff alleges only that Scroggins
admitted Plaintiff was correct in several instances but failed to take remedial
action.”19 This amorphous allegation does not provide the requisite specificity to state
a claim. And, in any event, the alleged admissions occurred prior to the 2021
settlement. Thus, any negligence claim against Scroggins is also time-barred. See id.
Plaintiff’s state-law claim for breach of contract fails to meet the Rule 12(b)(6)
standard. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “failed to honor or implement the terms
of” the settlement agreement reached in connection with the Board of Tax Appeal.20
Elsewhere, he alleges that the seizure of his 2023 and 2024 tax refunds were
impermissible because “the underlying tax issue was disputed, settled, or time-
barred.”21 These vague allegations are insufficient to infer what “tax issue” was
“disputed, settled, or time-barred,” who allegedly violated the settlement, and how
the dispute, settlement, or staleness of that tax issue disallowed seizure of the 2023
and 2024 refunds. Plaintiff’s failure to provide such details despite multiple
opportunities for amendment support the dismissal of this claim without prejudice to
his right to seek relief before the Louisiana State Board of Tax Appeals.
Finally, in his initial complaint, Plaintiff brought a fraud claim based on the
allegation that “Defendants provided false documentation to the IRS regarding
18 R. Doc. 11 at 4.
19 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 14.
20 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 22.
21 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 15.
Plaintiff’s tax liability resulting in unlawful garnishments.”22 Nowhere, however,
does Plaintiff specify the provider or content of the alleged false documentation, nor
when it occurred. Conclusory allegations of this nature, without factual detail, are
insufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Given that
Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to amend this claim yet failed to
provide any additional detail, it should be dismissed with prejudice.
IV. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Louisiana
Department of Revenue be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s § 1983, negligence, and
fraud claims against the remaining defendants be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to seek relief before
the Louisiana State Board of Tax Appeals.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
22 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 20.
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served
with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc)).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18 day of August, 2025.
Ws J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE